title the hispanic population: a demographic and issue ... · document resume. ed 240 211. ud 023...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 240 211 UD 023 366
TITLE The Hispanic Population: A Demographic and IssueProfile. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Censusand Population of the Committee on Post Office andCivil Service. House of Representatives,Ninety-Eighth Congress, First Session (September13-15, 1983).
INSTITUTION Congress of the U. S., Washington, D. C. HouseCommittee on Post Office and Civil Service.
PUB DATE Sep 83NOTE 292p.; Some sections may be marginally legible due to
small type.PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)
EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.DESCRIPTORS *Bilingual Education; *Business; Census Figures;
*Demography; Elementary Secondary Education;*Employment; Hearings; *Hispanic Americans;*Immigrants; Socioeconomic Status
ABSTRACTA wide series of issues affecting the Hispanic
community were discussed in these hearings. After a presentation ofcensus fihdings on Hispanic socioeconomic and demographiccharacteristics by the Acting Director of the Census Bureau,statements were offered on census findings about Hispanic languageuse; immigrant Hispanics and jobs and the Hispanic impact onnon-Hispanic earnings and employment; and recent immigration fromLatin America. The greater part of the hearings consisted oftestimony on three topics: bilingual education, the Hispanic businesssector, and employment in the Hispanic community. The Simpson-Mazzoliimmigration bill was also discussed. Those testifying on these topicsincluded government agency heads, educators, representatives ofHispanic organizations, U.S. Representatives, and economists.(CMG)
***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.***********************************************************************
S
Al
AN 3 1914
THE
J
HISPANIC POPULATION: A DEMOGRAPHICU ft.--
AND ISSUE PROFILE
1.4v-i(Si
HEARINGSBEFORE THE
CI SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION
1.1.) OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESNINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SEPTEMBER 13. 14. 15. 19&3
Serial No. 98-10
Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
EOUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER IERICI./...itns document nas been reproduced as
rect.ved trorn the person or oroantranon
ongmannr;Motor changes have been made to nprove
teproducton Quaky
Pants O. we* or pennons sLstedm tins docu
IT.OT do not illeCCSSanlY representottetat NIE
ponnon o potCe
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING 0/7ICZ
26-444 0 WASHINGTON : 1983
t 2
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
WILLIAM D. FORD. Michigan. ChairmanMORRIS K. UDALL, ArizonaWILLIAM (BILL) CLAY. MissouriPATRICIA SCHROEDER, ColoradoROBERT GARCIA. New YorkMICKEY LELAND. TexasDON ALBOSTA. MichiganGUS YATRON. PennsylvaniaMARY ROSE OAKAR. OhioKATIE HALL. IndianaGERRY SIKORSKI. MinnesotaTHOMAS A. DASCIILE. South DakotaRON ox LUGO. Virgin IslandsCHARLES E. SCHUMER, New YorkDOUGLAS H. BOSCO. California
Tom DaYuua. Staff DirectorROOM E. LOCKHART. General Counsel
Peasuct F. RISSLIM, Deputy Staff Director and Chief ClerkJosxsn A. Flamm. Minority Staff Director
GENE TAYLOR, MissouriBENJAMIN A. GILMAN. New YorkTOM CORCORAN. IllinoisJAMES A. COURTER, New JerseyCHARLES PASHAYAN. Ja.. CaliforniaWILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, CaliforniaDANIEL B. CRANE. IllinoisFRANK R. WOLF. VirginiaCONNIE MACK. Florida
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION
KATIE HALL, Indiana. ChairwomanMICKEY LELAND. Texas JAMES A. COURTER. New JerseyMARY ROSE OAKAR. Ohio WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER. CaliforniaCHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Scary PArrItICX. Subcommittee Staff Director
(ID
CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 13, 1983
Statement of: Page
Hon. Robert Garcia 2Hon. William E. Dannemeyer 2C. Louis Kincannon, Acting Director, Bureau of the Census, accompanied
by Nampeo Mc Kenney, Assistant Division Chief for Ethnic and RacialStatistics, and Edward Fernandez, Chief, Spanish and Ethnic StatisticsBranch 3
Dorothy Waggoner, consultant on bilingualism 22George Borjas, Department of Economics, University of California at
Santa Barbara 44Alejandro Portes, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University 57Leo Estrada. UCLA Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning 81Gloria Zamora, president. National Asses cation for Bilingual Education 89Carmen Perez, chief, Bureau of Bilin?ual Education, New York State 94Guillermo Lopez, director of California State Department of Education 102Keith Baker and Adriana de Kanter, editors, Bilingual Education: A
Reappraisal of Federal Policy 108Jose Arredondo, East Chicago school system 115Amalio Madueno, legislative consultant, Mexican American Legal De-
fense and Educational Fund 118
SEPTEMBER 14, 1983
Victor M. Rivera, National Director, Minority Business DevelopmentAgency. U.S. Department of Commerce 138
Heriberto Herrera, Deputy Administrator, Small Business Administra-tion 156
Jesus Chavarria, publisher/editor of Hispanic business magazine 163Dorita deLemos Down, director of communications. American Institute
for Transportation and Business Development 166Jose Antonio Font, president, Greater Washington Ibero-American Cham-
ber of Commerce 175Harry P. Pachon, executive director, National Association of Latino
Elected and Appointed Officials 178
SEPTEMBER 15, 1983
Hon. Toney Anaya, Governor, State of New Mexico 186Hon. Esteban Torres, a Representative from the State of California 191
Hon. E. "Kika" De La Garza, a U.S. Representative from the State ofTexas 192
Hon. William B. Richardson, a U.S. Representative from the State of NewMexico 193
Carol Jusenius, Economist, Commission on Employment Policy 196Fred Romero, U.S. Department of Labor 211Michael Borrero, president, National Puerto Rican Forum, Inc 219Raul Yzaguirre, president, National Council of La Raza ....... ........ ... ...... 130, 222Pedro Garza, executive director, SER-Jobs for P 229Delores Huerta, first vice president, United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO 234Hon. Edward R. Roybal, a U.S. Representative from the State of Califor-
nia 237
i.
4
IV
Statement ofContinuedJohn Shaw, Director, Immigration Reform Act Office, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, accompanied by Stan Davis, Assistant Director,Immigration Reform Act Office; and Richard Norton, Deputy Assistant PageCommissioner for Investigations 238
Richard P. Fajardo, staff attorney, Mexican American Legal Defense andEducational Fund 244Arnoldo Torres, National Executive Director, League of United LatinAmerican Citizens 252Jake Alarid, national chairman, American GI Forum 257Additional information:Report entitled "Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the
Hispanic Population: Results From the 1980 Census," prepared by theCongressional Research Service 264
Communication from Louis Nunez, president, National Puerto Rican Co-alition Inc., with an executive summary ofan annual report 283Communication from the U.S. Department of Education witnesses inresponse to additional questions submitted by Congressman Danne-meyer 286
5
THE HISPANIC POPULATION: DEMOGRAPHICAND ISSUE PROFILE
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION,
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 345,Cannon Office Building, Hon. Katie Hall presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATIE HALL
Mrs. HALL. Good morning. First of all, we wish to apologize forthe delay in our hearing. As you know, at 10 o'clock there was avote on the floor and, of course, we had to go to the floor, andwhile we were there we had to see if another vote was coming upimmediately. After that, we had a call from the Ambassador fromNicaragua, and that took up part of our time.
We do want to thank each person that came in this morning. Wewant to thank you for your patience and understanding, and we doappreciate your efforts in coming here today to participate in thehearing.
I am Katie Hall of Indiana, chairperson of the Subcommittee onCensus and Population. To my right is the Honorable RobertGarcia of New York City, who is a member of the committee andthe chairperson of the Hispanic Caucus here in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives. To my left is Scott Pastrick, our staff director, andin the room we do have with us some more staff people.
At this time I would like to officially welcome each person whohas come, and, of course, to say to you this is the first in a series ofsix hearings which will be conducted by this committee on "TheHispanic Population: A Demographic Profile." Our hearings will beheld here in Washington, D.C., perhaps in this same building orsame room, and we would especially like to welcome all the per-sons who are going to testify. We are very concerned about yourassessment, your evaluation, and your input in the hearings.
The Hispanic population, according to the 1980 U.S. census, wasapproximately 14.6 million persons. That means there is a 5.6-per-cent increase of the Hispanic population in the United States. Thepopulation is very diverse. It is rapidly growing, and according tothe census, we should see some very great changes, or some differ-ent changes in the future as they relate to the needs, the prospects,the education, the business, the employment, and of course, theoverall migration in this country.
(1)
6
2
Today we have with us a distinguished panel of witnesses, includ-ing the Honorable Louis Kin cannon, Acting Direct,z, Bureau of theCensus. He will begin our testimony. He will be followed by Mrs.Dorothy Waggoner, consultant on bilingualism; Dr. George Borjas,department of economics, University of California; Dr. AlejandroPortes, department of sociology, Johns Hopkins University; and Dr.Leo Estrada, UCLA Graduate School of Architecture.
Before we bring on our first witness, I would like to present toyou the Honorable Robert Garcia for some opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT GARCIA
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you.First, I want to thank you, Congresswoman Hall, for being kind
enough, as chairperson of this subcommittee, to hold these hear-ings. I think your cooperation is very important to us in the His-panic community, and we deeply appreciate it.
Coupled with that, I would like to say this is Hispanic heritageweek, and there are a series of seminars, and a series of hearingsthat are taking place here on Capitol Hill for the purpose of bring-ing somewhat closer the Hispanic population to, what I consider tobe, the heartbeat of America in terms of our Government and poli-tics in Washington.
I would say to all of you, please forgive us. We did have a vote,but coupled with that, we were in the middle of a most importantmeeting with the hotspot in the world right now, the Ambassadorfrom Nicaragua who was meeting with Ms. Hall and me over someissues of very sensitive areas. I know how busy most of you are.Please forgive us for this delay. To all of you, I am particularlyhappy to see so many faces that I know so well over the years thatI served as chairman of this subcommittee. With that, I would liketo thank you again.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. At this time we wish to callour witnesses to the table. Dr. Kincannon, Dr. Waggoner, Dr.Borjas, Dr. Portes, and Dr. Estrada, would you please come for-ward.
Before we start our testimony, I would point out to you that theHouse of Representatives is in session today, and it means there isa possibility that votes will be taken on the floor. In case of votes,members of this committee will have to recess briefly to go to thefloor and vote. In the event that votes are taken, we will call for abrief recess for that purpose, and resume when we return. At thistime we would like for Dr. Kincan non to please start the testimo-ny. However, before you proceed, I have a statement from Con-gressman Dannemeyer which will appear in the record at thispoint.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, A REPRE-SENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. DANNEMEYER. I am pleased to welcome our distinguishedpanel this morning to this hearing into the impact of the census onHispanic populations. I also welcome distinguished Members ofCongress from the Hispanic Caucus who are sitting with the sub-
.7
3
committee today. Finally, I join our audience in celebrating the di-versity of our American culture in this Hispanic Heritage Week.
In the information age, data is power. It is not who you know,but what you know that counts. Let us carefully consider how thisdata-power may be used and by whom it may be used. The censusdoes more than count people these days. It determines futurespo-litical, economic, and social. Wouldn't it be welcome if we movedtoward a situation whereby each citizen determined more of hisown future, rather than toward some data system controlled byGovernment and determining his or her future? The heritage ofHispanic populations should lie mainly in the hands of Hispanicpopulations, not in some governmental data bank.
May I add that while I welcome this morning's hearings, I ques-tion whether other committees of Congress should not have spon-sored the balance of the hearings on bilingual education, immigra-tion, small business, and Central America, since these issues aremore properly in their jurisdictions.
Again, my thanks to you Madam Chairwoman and the HispanicCaucus for this morning's hearing.
Mrs. HALL.. Mr. Kincannon, you may now give us the benefit ofyour testimony.
STATEMENT OF C. LOUIS KINCANNON, ACTING DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY NAMPEO McKEN-
NEY, ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF FOR ETHNIC AND RACIAL
STATISTICS; AND EDWARD FERNANDEZ, CHIEF, SPANISH AND
ETHNIC STATISTICS BRANCH
Mr. KINCANNON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am veryhonored to be here to participate in this hearing and in this week.I am very pleased to have the opportunity to give this report onthe Hispanic population. I am very pleased to appear before Chair-man Garcia again.
I would like to introduce very quickly Ms. McKenney on myright who is on the staff, and Mr. Fernandez who is behind me, andMr. Steve Tupper.
The Census Bureau has produced a wealth of statistics on theHispanic population from the 1980 census and current surveys. Alist of data products, at the end of this report, shows the volumeand scope of these statistics. Using data extracted from thesesources, I will present a statistical overview of the current condi-tions of Hispanics, as well as major demographic changes duringthe last decade. More detailed information appears in the censusproducts.
The Hispanic community is a young, diverse, and dynamic popu-lation that is experiencing rapid growth. The diversity is exhibitedin the distinct communities of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, andother Spanish origin groups. The rapid growth has had an effectupon a number of areas, which are noted in my presentation.During the last decade, the Hispanic population experienced prog-ress in only some social and economic areas. Let's review some spe-cifics.
The Census Bureau reported 9 million Hispanics in 1970 and 14.6million Hispanics in 1980. Hispanics constituted 6.4 percent of the
8
4
total population of the United States in 1980. We estimate thatthere were about 15.9 million Hispanics in March 1983.
Well over half, or about 9 million, of all Hispanics in 1980 wereof Mexican origin; 2 million were of Puerto Rican origin; under 1million were of Cuban origin; and 3 million were of other Spanishorigin.
The 1980 census information on the Hispanic population comesfrom answers to the question on Spanish origin, based on self-iden-tification, that we asked for everyone in the Nation. Specifically,we counted persons as Hispanics if they answered that they wereof Mexican, Mexican-American, or Chicano; Puerto Rican; Cuban;or other Spansh origin. Persons in the other Spanish category in-cluded those from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Centralor South America, or persons identifying generally as Spanish,Spanish-American, Hispano, Latino, et cetera. We consulted exten-sively with the Census Advisory Committee on the Spanish OriginPopulation for the 1980 Census on the development of this ques-tion, as well as on other census plans pertinent to the Hispaniccommunity.
The 14.6 million Hispanics represented a 61-percent increasesince 1970. Compared to the 9-percent growth for non-Hispanics,the proportionate increase for Hispanics is enormous. This growthresulted in part from high fertility and substantial immigrationfrom Mexico, Cuba, and other Central and South American coun-tries. But other factors contributing to the large increase wereoverall improvements in the 1980 census, better coverage of thepopulation, improved question design, and an effective public rela-tions campaign by the Census Bureau with the assistance of na-tional and community ethnic groups. These efforts undoubtedlycontributed to the higher count in 1980.
All of the Hispanic groups contributed to this substantial growthduring the 1970's. The Mexican origin population, which is by farthe largest Hispanic group, nearly doubled during the decade; bothPuerto Ricans and Cubans grew by more than 40 percent, personsof other Spanish origin by 19 percent.
Although the growth of the Hispanic population was widespread,in 1980 most Hispanics were still concentrated in the five South-western States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, andTexas. What is more dramatic is that both California and Texas,which had in 1970 the first and second largest Hispanic popula-tions, increased their share of this population. By 1980, over 50 per-cent of all Hispanics in the Nation resided in those two States. Out-side of the Southwest, sizable concentrations of Hispanics werefound in New York, Florida, and Illinois.
As we look at the separate Hispanic groups, we note differentconcentrations and geographic distributions. Although Mexicansare still largely concentrated in the Southwest, they became morewidely dispersed during the 1970's. By 1980, six States outside theSouthwestIllinois, Michigan, Washington, Florida, Indiana, andOhioeach had more than 50,000 persons of Mexican origin.Puerto Ricans moved from New York, which is still the major portof entry for this group, to other States in the Northeast and NorthCentral regions. Unlike the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, the con-
9
5
centration of Cubans in Florida increased so that in 1980 morethan one-half of the Nation's Cubans resided in that State.
Because of the substantial growth of Hispanics, they constituteda larger proportion-6.4 percentof the national population in1980 than the 4.5 percent in 1970. The Hispanic proportion of thepopulation also increased in each of the States with major concen-trations of Hispanics. By 1980, Hispanics were more than one-thirdof the total population in New Mexico, about one-fifth in Texas andCalifornia; and about one-tenth or more in four other StatesAri-zona, Colorado, Florida, and New York.
Hispanics are largely metropolitan dwellers. And they were morelikely than non-Hispanics to live in central cities. For instance, in1980, one-half of all Hispanics resided in the central cities of metro-politan areas compared with slightly less than one-third of non-His-panics.
Not only did most Hispanics live in the metropolitan areas, butthey were heavily concentrated in the largest areasthose of 1million or more persons. Puerto Ricans and Cubans were morelikely to live in the largest metropolitan areas than Mexican originpersons.
Now, let's review some of the social characteristics of Hispanics.Hispanics, generally, are a youthful population. Looking at the
age chart, we see much larger proportions of Hispanics than non-Hispanics in the younger age groups; more than 20 percent of His-panics were under 10 years old in 1980 compared to 14 percent ofnon-Hispanics. Conversely, Hispanics have lower proportions in theolder age groups, for example, only 3 percent of all Hispanics were70 years old and over, less than one-half the proportion for non-Hispanics. In 1980, the median age of Hispanics was only 23 years,compared to 31 for non-Hispanics. The younger Hispanic popula-tion is in part a result of higher fertility levels.
Interestingly enough, there are some significant differerlesamong the Hispanic groups. The Cubans are the oldest group witha median age of 38 years, topping that for non-Hispanics; butPuerto Ricans and Mexican origin persons are extremely youngpopulations with median ages of about 22 years. The highermedian age for Cuban compared to other groups reflects, mainly,the older ages of Cuban immigrants.
Hispanic families were more likely than non-Hispanic families tohave children. In 1980, two-thirds of Hispanic families containedchildren compared to one-half of non-Hispanic families. Bothgroups showed declines from 1970.
Because of higher fertility levels, the average number of childrenin families was larger among Hispanics than non-Hispanics. Theaverages decreased for both groups since 1970, but the decline wasless for Hispanics.
Similar to the trend for the rest of the Nation, the percentage ofHispanic families maintained by women moved upward in recentyears. By 1983, 23 percent of Hispanic families were maintained bywomen, a higher percent than the corresponding figure for non-Hispanic families.
Among Hispanic families, the proportion maintained by womenwas noticeably higher for Puerto Ricansabout 40 percentthanfor other Hispanic groups.
1110
6
It is most encouraging to observe the marked improvement inthe educational attainment level of young Hispanics. In 1983, 58percent of young Hispanic adults were high school graduates, com-pared to only 45 percent in 1970. This improvement also appears inthe proportions of college graduates, which was 10 percent in 1983but only 5 percent in 1970.
Despite these gains, Hispanics have not reached the level of non-Hispanics. In 1983, 88 percent of young non-Hispanic adults werehigh school graduates and 25 percent had completed 4 years ormore of college.
Striking differences in educational attainment show up amongHispanic groups. Seventy percent of Cubans were high school grad-uates compared to slightly more than 50 percent for Mexican andPuerto Rican origin persons.
In the 1980 census, we asked a question on language spoken inthe home. Of the non-English languages, Spanish was reportedmost frequently. Over 11 million persons, or 5 percent, reportedthat they spoke Spanish in the home. Of these Spanish speakers,about one-fourth reported that they did not speak English well orat all.
As noted previously, part of the substantial growth of the His-panic population in the United States is a result of the very largeincrease in immigration from Spanish-speaking countries, particu-larly Mexico. During the 1970's about 650,000 legal immigrants ofMexican origin came to the United States.
Rece-.ly completed research estimates that the census countedabout 2 million undocumented aliens. Mexico contributed over 45percent, or over 900,000 persons. No other individual country con-tributed so many. The remainder of Latin America and Caribbeanarea accounted for 23 percent, or 480,000 of the undocumentedaliens counted in the census.
As a result of the large flow of immigrants, about one-third ofthe Hispanic population in the United States in 1980 was foreignborn. Florida contained the highest proportionabout 60 percent.This is not surprising because of the large number of Cubans whocame to the United States in the 1960's.
Among the States with the largest Hispanic populations, Califor-nia and Illinois each ranked second, with 37 percent foreign born.Surprisingly, in Texas, whose border is a major source of entry forMexican immigrants, only 19 percent were foreign born. Further-more, New Mexico, which had the highest proportion of Hispanicsin its population, had only a very small proportion foreign born.Both Texas and New Mexico contain large numbers of indigenousHispanics.
In the last two Presidential elections, the registration levels andvoting participation of Hispanics were lower than in 1972. In thelast Presidential election, 36 percent of Hispanics 18 years old andover reported that they had registered; only 30 percent voted. Ineach election, the voter registration and participation rates werelower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanics. The substantiallylower rates of Hispanics are partly the result of the relativelyhigher and growing proportion of foreign born among Hispanics.
11
7
Home ownership is relatively low among Hispanics. hs 1980, lessthan half of Hispanic households lived in homes they owned com-pared to two-thirds of the non-Hispanic households.
In looking at the individual Hispanic groups, home ownershiprates in 1980 were much higher for Mexican and Cuban origin per-sons than for those of Puerto Rican origin. The high proportion ofPuerto Rican households that were renter-occupied reflects in parttheir very high concentration in central cities of metropolitanareas and their lower income levels.
In 1980, the home ownership rate for Hispanic householdsshowed no improvements over 1970, despite gains by Cuban andPuerto Rican households because the home ownership rate forMexican origin households declined.
Now, let's move to the economic sphere.The proportion of Hispanic women in the labor force jumped
from 41 percent in 1973 to 49 percent in 1982. This increase forHispanic women is consistent with the trend for non-Hispanicwomen. By contrast, the proportions of Hispanic and non-Hispanicmen in the civilian labor force in 1982 showed no appreciablechange from 1973 levels.
Since 1973, when annual data on the unemployment of Hispanicsfirst became available, Hispanic unemployment rates have beenconsistently higher than those for non-Hispanics. In 1982, as wellas in 1973, the Hispanic unemployment rate was about one andone-half times that of non-Hispanics.
The unemployment situation for Hispanics reflected the chang-ing economic conditions of the Nation. The jobless rates of His-panics climbed during the recession of 1973-75 and then showed asignificant downward movement until the end of the decade. How-ever, during the 1979 to 1982 period, their unemployment rateclimbed again and grew from 8.3 percent to 13.8 percent. The par-ticularly marked increase from 1981 to 1982 in the unemploymentrate of Hispanics resulted from the most recent recession, whichalso caused a rise in the rate of non-Hispanic persons.
Occupation statistics paint different portraits for Hispanic andnon-Hispanic persons. In 1982, about one-fourth of Hispanics werein operative occupations, such as manufacturing machine opera-tors, service station attendants, and truck drivers. This was abouttwice the proportion for non-Hispanics. Although 9 percent of His-panics were employed as professional and technical workers,almost double that proportion for non-Hispanics were employed inthese jobs. Furthermore, employed Hispanics were less likely to beworking as managers and administrators than were non-Hispanics.
A glimpse at data on businesses shows that there were 219,000Hispanic-owned firms in 1977, compared to 117,000 in 1972. Al-though part of the increase can be attributed to expanded coverageof businesses, the actual gain by Hispanic firms was rather impres-sive.
In 1977, Hispanic firms accounted for 2 percent of the 10 millionfirms in this country. For each industry, the proportion of Hispanicfirms was also small, each below 3 percent.
On average, the income levels of Hispanic families were lowerthan those for non-Hispanic families. The median money income ofHispanic families in 1982 was about $16,000 compared with a
8
median of about $24,000 for non-Hispanic families. Looking at thefigures in more detail, we see substantial differences in familyincome among the Hispanic groups. Puerto Rican families had thelowest median cash family income of about $11,000 in 1982. Themedian income of Mexican origin families was about $16,000;Cuban and other Spanish origin families had the highest medianincome of about $19,000.
The cash income levels of families may be related to a number offactors, such as number of workers in the family, educational at-tainment levels, and composition of the family. The proportion ofPuerto Rican families with no workers was much higher than forother Hispanic groups. In addition, the educational attainmentlevels of Puerto Ricans were relatively low. These are some of thefactors which contribute to the lower incomes of Puerto Rican fam-ilies.
The money income figures do not reflect the fact that many fam-ilies receive part of their income in a nonmoney form, such asmedicare benefits or employer contributions to health and pensionprograms. Noncash benefits intended for the low-income populationare discussed later in this report.
Overall, the changes during the last 10 years in the income andpoverty levels of Hispanics were not encouraging. From 1972 to themid-1970's, the median cash income of Hispanic families generallymoved downward. Gains during the latter half of the 1970 decadeoffset the earlier decline. In the most recent period, the 1979 to1982, Hispanic families experienced a substantial decrease of about14 percent in real median family income.
During the last 10 years, the median cash income of non-His-panic families showed the same general pattern of changes as thatfor Hispanic families.
The proportion of Hispanic persons below the poverty level in1982 was very highabout 30 percentand represented a sharp in-crease over the 1979 rate. The recent recession and associated risein unemployment contributed to the increase in the poverty rate.The 1982 proportion was also much higher than the 1972 rate.
The poverty rates for Hispanics have been consistently higherthan that for the total population throughout these years.
During the past decade, there has been a rapid growth in publicprograms that provide food, housing, and medical assistance to thepoor. While these benefits have increased enormously over the past10-12 years, their value is not counted as income for purposes ofmeasuring the number of households with incomes below the pov-erty level. A study conducted by the Bureau shows that inclusionof the market value of food stamps, public housing, free and re-duced-price lunches, medicaid, and medicare would have reducedthe percentage of all poor households from 12 pert.erlt to about 7percent in 1979. The comparable reduction for Hispanic iiuuseholdswas from 21 percent to 11 percent.
With the exception of public housing, a much higher proportionof Hispanic than all households in 1982 received noncash benefitsintended for the low-income population. Of Hispanic households,for example, about 19 percent received food stamps and 45 percentcontained children receiving free or reduced-price school lunches.
13
9
In summary, the statistical portrait of Hispanics in the UnitedStates, presented by the latest decennial census and current sur-veys, shows a fast-growing, young, active, and diverse populationclosing some gaps in social and economic status with the overallpopulation. In areas such as education, labor force participation,and business ownership, Hispanics have shown improvements. Onthe other hand, unemployment and poverty rates have risen, andcash income levels have fallen in recent years. The Census Bureauintends to continue the collection, analysis, and publication of sta-tistical information to provide up-to-date information on Hispanics.- [The charts which follow were submitted for the record:]
1.
Population Growth(Percent Change 1970 to 1980)
Total47% Population
.7:7777.--- (Percent:1;:iiiin Change
YA 1970 to 1900)
, 16 i
Distribution of the SpanishPopulation by State: 1980
Arizona,Colorado, andNew Mexico
9%
Illinois4%
Bawl Total persons of Spanish Origin in the United States.
a
Age: 1980
70 Years Oldand Over
60 to 69 Years
50 to 59 Years
40 to 49 Years
30 to 39 Years
20 to 29 Years
10 to 19 Years
0 to 9 Years
nl.:777:7"A 3.0%17.7%
18.6%
110.6%
9.1%110.1%
, ;%%. 13.6%113.9%
cl :
`:,;V's
114.1%
Base Total population of Spanish origin and not of Spanish origin.
18
E Spanish OriginNot of SpanishOrigin
20.3%17.9%
17.1%21.1%
21.96
Co
I')Families Maintained by Women
Percent of Families
15%
20%
23%
1970 1980 1983
Spanish Origin
14%
11%
15%
1970 1980 1983
Not of Spanish Origin
Base Total number of families of Spanish origin and not of Spanish origin.
s 1 3
Educational Attainment(Persons 25 to 34 Years Old)
Spanish Origin
1970
1983
40%
48%
Four or MoreYears of College
Four or More
t5.:%,1Years of High School
ill:Mi 58%;?
Not of Spanish Origin
1970
1983
57% 73%
Base Total persons of Spanish origin and not of Spanish origin 25 to 34 years old.
20
Percent Spanish Foreign Born: 1980
61%
29%
37% 37%
7
United Florida California Illinois New Texas Arizona Colorado New RemainderStates York Mexico of the U.S.
Base Total Spanish origin population in each area.
21
Voting and Registration
Spanish Origin
37%11972 44%
1976 :77:777.7:77:777,79 ]38%
136%1960
Not of Spanish Origin
esRegistered
Voted
HRegistered
Voted
1 74'3'o1972
68%1976 : ''''''''''' 60cyo
1980I 69%
Base Persons 18 years old and over of Spanish origin and not of Spanish origin.
22
oneir#00yinent Rat(Annual Averages)
10
ot 4***1
0
44,---(471441#44101°16"41181111618°°.
ummuuno
1
Not Of SPh
1674
ilth Origin
973* 1675 1976 1977
ease- Ntsonit of Spanish origin*First Poor for ivhkh date are available
1981
in 14 WWII*, leber force and"of°f81444h "gin 11 Pear* °id end°VI*
2 31979
19
I40l
1=3 Spanish Origin
=i Total Parsons
22"
ri 1:
22
Mr. KINCANNON. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss thesematters.
I am sorry if it was difficult to see some of the slides. We willmake sets of the slides available to the committee if you desire forfurther use. I will be pleased to answer any questions.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you. That was an excellent presentation. Ournext witness will be Dr. Dorothy Waggoner, a consultant on bilin-gualism in the United States.
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY WAGGONER, CONSULTANT ONBILINGUALISM
Dr. WAGGONER. Madam Chairman, Congressman Garcia, I amDorothy Waggoner. I am a specialist in language minority statis-tics. I have been associated with the effort to count limited Englishproficient children and adults in the United States since its initi-ation in 1974. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discusswith yc .1 some of the findings from the 1980 census with regard tolanguage, and to highlight some of the work which remains to bedone.
I am going to begin my statement. I believe you have my pre-pared statement, so I am summarizing quickly. I am going todefine some terms. I will be presenting findings from the 1980census on home speakers of Spanish in the United States, andthose reported to have difficulty speaking English, and some esti-mates of the number of Spanish language minority children withlimited English proficiency based on the 1980 census. I will con-clude with some discussion of the special study which the Depart-metit of Education commissioned from the Bureau of the Census toprovide additional information about limited English proficientchildren and adults, the English language proficiency study whichwas conducted in the summer of 1982 for which we do not yet haveany findings.
I would like to define some terms. First, not all Hispanics haveSpanish mother tongues, live in households which Spanish isspoken, or speak Spanish. Likewise, not all people who speak Span-ish or live in Spanish-speaking households are Hispanics. I amtalking about the data in the census related to language from thelanguage questions. When we have analyzed that data, we willknow how many of those people are not Hispanics, and, conversely,when we have analyzed the data on Hispanics by language charac-teristics, we will know how many Hispanics do not live in house-holds in which Spanish is spoken.
Second, there are a number of groups that we can talk aboutwith regard to language. In the first place, the census question was:Does this person speak a language other than English at home?There are people who live in households in which some of the re-sponses were yes, this person speaks Spanish. But for other peoplein the household, the response was that this person speaks onlyEnglish.
If we combine the data by household, we can determine thenumber of people who live in households in which Spanish isspoken, and for children, this constitutes the group of Spanish lan-guage minority children. However, there is no way to get from the
27
23
1980 census itself the number of adults whose mother tongue wasSpanish, but who are presently living in households which onlyEnglish is spoken. We have lost those people in the 1980 census.
A third thing that is most important, is we need to understandthe difference between English language speaking proficiency andreported difficulties speaking English. Speaking skills are only oneaspect of the English language proficiency. In order for a child tomake it in the English median school system, he has to be able toread and write. In order for an adult to get and hold a job and tosucceed in the mainstream, he had to be able to read and write. Hehas to be able to function on a level beyond just the speaking diffi-culty.
The question in the census was never intended to identify thechildren and adults who have special needs with which we are con-cerned. It was the wily kind of question that you can ask in acensus. In 1978, we undertook the children's English and servicesstudy to study language minority children in their homes, and todetermine by objective tests how many children in those homeswere limited in speaking and understanding and reading and writ-ing such that they could not succeed in an English-medium school.I have applied some findings from that study to the 1980 census,and I will summarize those briefly among the data that I'm talkingabout. However, there has been no study of the English languageproficiency in adults. For that, we have to rely upon the Englishlanguage proficiency study which was the study that was undertak-en last summer from which we will have some data later on.
Now, a few remarks about the numbers. Mr. Kincannon has al-ready shown us a very nice graph on the language data. Elevenand one-half million people in the United States, age 3 and olderreported in the 1980 census that they speak Spanish at home. Theyconstituted about half of all the people in the United States whoreported speaking languages other than English in 1980. Therewere seven times more Spanish speakers than speakers in the nextlargest groups. Home speakers of Spanish were found in everyState. However, nearly three out of four lived in California, Texas,New York, Florida, and Illinois. Home speakers of Spanish consti-tuted 5.3 percent of the total population of the United States aged3 and older in 1980. They constituted 10 percent or more of thepopulation of four StatesNew Mexico, Texas, California, and Ari-zona. In New Mexico, 3 out of 10 people in 1980 reported that theyspeak Spanish. It was spoken by nearly one in five in Texas.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
People who speak Spanish at home are a young group in com-parison with the total population. More than a quarter were schoolage in 1980. In contrast, 22.6 percent of the total U.S. populationwas 5 years and older in 1980, and only 13.3 percent of home speak-ers of non-English languages other than Spanish were aged 5 to 17in 1980.
Because of these differences in age distribution, two-thirds of thechildren reported to speak non-English languages at home in 1980spoke Spanish, but only 44.3 percent of the adults 18 and olderspoke Spanish.
28
24
REPORTED DIFFICULTY SPEAKING ENGLISH
Spanish speakers have more reported difficulty speaking Englishthan other home speakers of other non-English languages accord-ing to the 1980 census. A quarter of all those aged 5 and over whospeak Spanish at home were reported not to speak English well, ornot to speak it at all. In contrast, only 12.9 percent of those speak-ing non-English languages other than Spanish were reported tohave difficulty speaking English. The disparity was greater foradults over age 17 and somewhat less for school-age children.
I have already talked about the difference between English profi-ciency and difficulty speaking English. I would just like to review afew of the findings on children with limited English proficiencywhich I have derived from the 1980 census, applying what welearned about these children in the 1978 study.
It is estimated that about 2.2 million children who speak Spanishat home are limited in the English language skills needed to suc-ceed in the English-medium school system. In addition, it is esti-mated that 400,000 other children in Spanish-speaking homes onlyspeak English, but also lack proficiency in one or more other skillsneeded to succeed without special assistance in school programs de-signed for the English-speaking majority. There may be other chil-dren who are bilingual, but who were not reported as speakingSpanish at home because they usually speak English. These wouldincrease the estimate. However, at a minimum, we estimate that in1980 there were 2.6 million children from Spanish-speaking homes,and probably more, who need special help related to their languagebackground and English proficiency. The majority live in a fewStates. They are highly concentrated within those States. Therewere six States with at least 100,000 children from Spanish-speak-ing homes with limited English proficiency. These were California,Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey. Now, 8 out of10 of all the children with these characteristics lived in theseStates in 1980. Nearly three out of five of LEP children from Span-ish speaking homes in California lived in Los Angeles, Long Beach,or adjoining areas, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Riverside,San Bernardino, and Ontario.
LEP children in Spanish-speaking homes from the States of NewYork and New Jersey were even more concentrated-7 out of 10lived in New York City and its New York and New Jersey suburbs.More than 90 percent of LEP children in Spanish-speaking homesin Illinios lived in Chicago.
I would like to close my remarks by discussing briefly the Eng-lish language proficiency study, because it has tremendous poten-tial to take us beyond what we already know about populationswho need special help in the United States. It also has some dis-turbing factors, and I think we need to inform ourselves, and weneed to be very sure that we do understand what the study is allabout and what its findings are really saying to us.
The children's English and services study in 1978 had a numberof defects which are described in my statement. The English lan-guage proficiency study is an attempt to remedy some of these de-fects. However, it also has a number of other purposes. One is torenorm the test that was used to measure English proficiency of
29
25
children in the 1978 study. Another is to gather, for the first time,information from objective testing of adults. The ELPS will yieldseparate direct estimates on the size of the population of childrenand adults with limited English proficiency living in California,Florida, New York, Texas, and the remainder of the country. Itwill provide us with the means to estimate the number of limitedEnglish proficiency children and adults in all other States andfrom a number of other language backgrounds. It will provide newinformation on the numbers of characteristics of LEP children, andit will provide information for the first time on the adults. It willmake possible additional study of the properties of the test used in1978.
The norming group for the children's English and services studyconsisted of children designated by their schools as fluent Englishspeakers. These were children who were achieving normally inschool. In the ELPS, the CESS test has been administered to asample of the total school age population in homes in which onlyEnglish is spoken. As we know from recent studies of U.S. educa-tion, many of these children are not achieving normally. Moreover,some of them may also lack proficiency in some of the English lan-guage skills needed to succeed in school, even though they comefrom English-speaking homes.
The English language proficiency findings from the ELPS will beused to examine the test scores which are used to separate limitedEnglish proficient language minority children from English profi-cient minority children. Revised scores will produce different esti-mates of the size of the group in need of special programs and serv-ices. The characteristics of the norming group will determine thedefinition of limited English proficiency.
It makes a difference, therefore, whether the norm is based uponthe average scores of all the English language background childrenstudied, or whether it is based on scores which are adjusted for so-cioeconomic status, in the belief as another theory goes, that socio-economic status rather than language is of greater importance indetermining and explaining the differences in achievement of chil-dren from language minority groups and majority children.
There is also a belief that we really shouldn't have a higherstandard for low socioeconomic status language minority childrenthan we have for low cocioeconomic status English-language-back-ground children. Depending on the norming group, we have a pos-sibility that the estimates will represent, not the numbers of chil-dren in Spanish-speaking and other language minority homes whoneed help to succeed educationally, but the minimum numbers whoneed help to keep up with the least advantaged children in ourschools. This is an important distinction. The same problems, thesame considerations will apply to the norming of the adult tests,which of course will be done for the first time. I am concernedabout the issues of equity involved in the way that these tests arenormed, and this is something which I want to leave with you.
We need to do a number of things still to realize the potential ofthe 1980 census. We need to recombine the data by household andfind out how many people there really are in households in whichSpanish is spoken. We need to analyze the language responses ofthe Hispanics to determine how many Hispanics speak Spanish or
310
26
live in households which Spanish is spoken or are completely Eng-lish-speaking environments. We need to analyze the language datain order to determine how many people who speak Spanish do notclaim themselves as Hispanics. We need to complete English lan-guage proficiency study as soon as possible to provide an objectivemeasure of the size of the population of children and adults whocannot achieve their full potential in our society without special as-sistance.
If the ELPS provides such a measure which is sensitive to issuesof equity, we can have confidence in applying the ELPS ratios tothe 1980 census data. This will give us tremendous advantage incomparing the well-being on various indicators of educationalsocial and educational status. We will be able to assess the needsand plan programs and services which will truly assure the equalopportunity of Hispanics and language minorities in our society.Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Waggoner follows. Also, the response towritten questions submitted by Mr. Dannemeyer follows:]
31
27
ESTINATM RIM THE 1993 CENSUS ON PEDPLE IN 11311M IN 101/0H VANISH IS SPOREN
Statement by Dorothy 1/aggoner. PhD
to the
Subcommittee on C.neus and PopulationCbmmittee on Post Office and Civil Service
U.S. House of Representatives
September 13. 1993
I am Dprothy Vacgoner. I am a soecialist in language minority
statistics Prior to my recent retirement. I was an intonation snecialist
in the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Lanuares Affairs of the
U.S. Department of BOucation I was associated with t-he Federal effort to
count ILlited-Dlelish-sroficient language minority children and adults from
its inception in 1974. I chaired the subcommittee on language of the Inter-
agency Oommittee on Race and Ethnicity for the 1980 Census.
I am very 'leased to have this opportunity to discuss with you
some of the findings from the 1983 Census with regard to language. and to
highlight some of the work which remains to be done. The 1990 Census has
an important potential for helping us to understand better the language chtrac-
teristics of Hispanics and language minorities in our country. Itcan help us examine the relationship between bingo age exposure and usage
and Fluaitsh lan-tage nroficiencv and the indicators of educational. economic
and social we 1 -being It can help us to plan nrORTIAS which will assure
that HisPardcs and language aioorities achieve their full potential- -
that they indeed obtain an equal onnortunity in the mainstream society.
I will begin my statement by defining soae terms. I will then
nresent some. flr4ings from the 1990 C.nsus on hone sneakers of Snanish in
the United States and on those rePorted to have difficulty sneaking English
32
28
and some estimates of the numbers of Spanish language minority children with
limited English Proficiency (LE?) based on the 1980 Census. Finally, I will
discuss a study undertaken by the Bureau of the Census for the Department of
illucation which has not yet been completed. 'Nis is the English Languag,e
Proficiency Study (52S). In it, a sample of children and adults in SPanish-
spea)d.ng and other language minority homes from the 1910 Census was tested
for English Proficiency, This was the first time that adults have been tested
in a national survey
DEFINITION 0? TMiYS
There ass several terms which we need to understand in order to
know what the findings represent. In the first Place, not all Hisser-les
have a Spanish mother tongue or live in households in which S-unish is currently
IsPoken. Likewise, not all People with Spanish language backgrounds claim a
HisPanic ethnic origin. In this statement. I will be discussing the findings
related to the group who resorted in the Census that they speak Spanish at
hone, and the findings derived from the responses of this grow. Although
most of these people are NisPanic, we will not know how many of them are
or how many Hispanics live in all-English-sneaking hoses--until additional
study of the 1980 Census data has been completed.
Secondly, the 'eerie who speak Spanish at hose are a subset of those
who live in homes in which Sunish is Token who are, in turn, a subset of the
Sunish lan,gutre background or Swinish language minority Population, as this
tens has been used in previous studies. The 19`?0 Census home language question
asked "Does this person speak a Language other than English at home" The
res-unses provide a direct estimate of children and adults who speak Spanish
at hose. By combining the responses by household, it is Possible to estimate
33
the numbers of children and adults living in hoses in which Spanish is spoken,
regardless of their individual usage. The number of children so estimated
is the number of Spanish language minority children. However, the number
of adults leavesoutthose who have Spanish mother tongues but now live in
homes in which only English is Broken. Some of these People may also have
special needs related to their proficiency in English.
Thirdly, there is a difference between English-speaking ability,
as re-ported in the census, and proficiency in Dliclish, measured by an objective
test. The 1990 Census asked, for those reported to speak Sranish or another
non-English language at home, how well they speak English. This question
was never intended to identify children and adults with special needs related
to their language backgrounds and English proficiency, including proficiency
in reading and writing as well as spooking and understanding. For this
puroor.e an objective test relating the skills measured to the context--the
school or the job -is required. The 1973 Children's aaglish and Services
Study (CESS) provided such a test for children. It was administered to a
sample of language minority children in their homes in that study which was
sponsored by the National Institute of .ucation and the National Center for
EJucation Statistics In the CMS, 59 Percent of the children whom Parents
or guardians rated as speaking English very well or well tested as limited
in the English proficiency skills needed to succeed in school. Conversely.
about 7 percent of the children included in the group rated as not sneaking
English well or not sPeaTdrac it at all tested as proficient in the school-
related English skills.
Speaking ability is only one of the skills needed to succeed in
school, obtain an hold a job, or otherwise participate in mainstream society.
26-464 0-83--3 34
4 . I
30
Census resnondents were not asked to rate sneaking ability in school or on the
job. Census respondents, in *any oases from language minority backgrounds
themselves. may or may not have been able to gauge the extent to which
children and other adults in the household are able to function in English
in the Particular environments in which English language skills are essential.
later in this statement I will present some estimates of the
numbers of limited-English-oroficient children from Spanish-speaking hates
based upon the apnlication of findings from the CMS. I will also discuss
the WS which will update the finding on LEP children fro. the CMS and
provide. for the first time, estimates of the numbers of adults in homes
in which non-English lanwvages are spoken who have limited Duslish proficiency
SPEAEVS OF SPANISH IN ME. UNITED STATM IN 1930
Eleven and a half million people. aged three and older, retorted
in the 1930 Census that they steak Spanish at home. They constituted about
half of all the people in the United States who reported sneaking languages
other than Dulish at home in 1930. There were seven times more Stanish
speakers than the next largest grouts. There were about a million and a
half sneakers each of Italian, German and French. No other language minority
group had as many as a million home sneakers.
Home speakers of Snanish lived in every state in the Union in
1930. as shown in table 1. However, a substantial majority lived in a few
states Nearly two thirds of the group lived in (.1.1iforitia. Texas and New
York and three out of four in those states plus Florida and Illinois. About
3.3 million neonle. acrd three and older who reported that they sneak Spanish
35
31
st home, lived in California About 2.6 Pillion lived in Texas and 1.5 million
in New York Florida was home to soo,000 Spanish-speakers and Illinois to
half a million. Nine other states had at least 100.000 people who sneak
Spanish at hone.
Rose sneakers of Snanish constituted 5.3 percent of the total
DOD ulatton of the United States, aced three and older, in 1990. They con-
stituted 10 Percent or more of the toPulation of four states - -New Mexico,
Texas, California and Arizona. In New -exico,* Spanish was woken at tone
by three reonle out of ten in 1990. It was Broken by nearly one in five in
Texas.
AC?. DISTRIBUTION OF .-..PF.AKEBS O SPANIZR IN TM UNIT D SPAT
Poole who sneak Snanir.h at hone are a young, croup in connarison
with the tot. al population and with sneakers of other non-FAclich languages
More than a cuarter--26 5 Percent--of the population aced five and older
were school-ace in 1990 In contrast, 22.6 Percent of the total. U.S. !vas-
lation five and older and only 11.3 Percent of the hose sneakers of non-
English lanr.apes, other than Spanish were aged five to seventeen in 1990.
Because of the different are distributions of Spanish sneakers and sneakers
of other '..ascaages, two tnirds of the children renorted to sneak non-iZelish
law-Jager. at tone in 1990 spoke Spanish. but only Ws:3 percent of the adults,
eighteen and. older. did to rest data are shown in table 2
36
32
Table 1.--MTIMAT5) NUMBERS AND PENCEIIACES ()Ploys snovs OF SPANISH,
ACED THREE
State
AND OLDU1, BY STATE: UNITED SPATES, 1980
Number
oftotal
population
%. of Spanish speakers
Py state Cuaalative
All states 11.559.000 5.3 100.0 100.0
California 3.270.000 14.5 28.3 211.3
Texas 2.595.000 19.2 22.5 50.7F.w York 1.453,000 8.6 12.6 63.3
:Ida 807,000 8.6 7.0 70.3Illinois 524,000 4.8 4.5 74.1New Jersey 431.000 6.1 3.7 71.6New Mexico 362,000 29.4 3.1 81.7Arizona 343,000 13.3 3.0 14.7
Colorado 114,000 6.7 1.6 6.3Pennsylvania 140,000 1.2 1.2 87.5Massachusetts 114,000 2.1 1.0 19.4Connecticut 1011,000 3.6 0.9 89.4Michigan 107,000 1.2 0.9 90.3Ohio 101,000 1.0 0.9 91.2Washington 82,000 2.1 0.7 91.9Indiana 71,000 1.4 0.6 92.5Vireinia 66,000 1.3 0.6 93.1Maryland 57,000 1.4 0.5 93.6Louisiana 52,000 1.3 0.5 94.0
Wisconsin 49,000 1.1 0.4 94.4
Georgia 49,000 0.9 0.4 94.9North Carolina 44.000 0.8 0.4 95.2Oregon 43,000 1.7 0.4 95.6Oklahoaa 42,000 1.5 0.4 96.0Kansas 42,000 1.8 0.4 96.3Missouri 38,000 0.8 0.3 96.7Utah 37,000 2.8 0.3 97.0Nevada 36,000 4.7 0.3 97.3Idaho 21,000 3.2 0.2 97.5Tennessee 27,000 0.6 0.2 97.8Alabama 23,000 0.6 0.2 94.0
Minnesota 23,000 0.6 0.2 98.2South Carolina 23,000 0.8 0.2 99.4Iowa 21,000 0.8 0.2 93 6
District of Columbia 19,000 3.1 0.2 93 7Kentucky 18,000 0.5 0.2 98 9
Nebraska 18,000 1.2 0.2 99.0Mississippi 15,000 0.6 0.1 99.2Wyoming 15.000 3.4 0.1 99.3Arkansas 14,000 0.6 0.1 99 4
Rhode Island 12,000 1,4 0.1 99.5Hawaii 12.000 1.3 0.1 99.6Delaware 8,000 1.5 0.1 99 7West Virginia 8,000 0.4 0.1 99.8Montar.a MOO 0.8 99.8Alaska 5.000 1.4 99.9
37
33
Table I.--=TDIATED StbIBERS AND MICE:MGM OF VIE STEAK ;:RS OF SPANISH.
ACM TIMES. AND OLDIN, BY STATES UNITED STATM. 1980 (Continued)
% oftotal
% of Soanish Bleaker*
By state OLL...aulativsState Ktrtber Itssulation
New Pahlshire 4.000 0.5 99.9North 111%,ta 3.000 0.5 99.9South Lakota 3.000 0.5 100.0rain. 3.000 0.3 100.0Vermont 2.000 0.4 100.0
Less than an estiaated 0.1 of a percent.
SOUR( : 1980 Census, usrublished TrrelLainary data subject tochange...
38
34
Pablo 2.--ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF HOME SPEAKERS OF SPANISH AND OVER 80N-r.s.:CLISH
IANCUACES. ACED FIVE AND OLDER. SY ACE COUP AND Pt:WEN:ACE WITH
REPORTED DIFFICULTY IDEAkT8C MCLIStli UNITED STATES, 1940
Age crow: and renorted &Poach Speakers of otherdifficulty sneaking rnglish Total sneakers non-Dnglish lan.uages
Tbtal, aged 5 and older
Percentage with reporteddifficulty sneaking English
22.973.000
18.7
11,117.000
24.9
11.856.000
12.9
Mod 5 to 17 4.529.000 2.947.000 1.592.000
Percentage with reporteddifficulty speaking Criglish 14.4 16.0 11.4
Aged 18 and older 18.444.000 9.171,000 10.274.000
Percentage with renorteddifficulty streaking English 19.8 28.0 13.2
NOTE.--Detail say not add to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U. S. bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of PoPulationand Pausing. Sunoleaentary Renort. PHCIO-S1-1. ProvisiopalEstinotee of Sosfalonic, and Mousing ChArActerir.icsIiashington. I) C. U.S. Covernaent Printing lffice. March1992).
39
MVORTF7) DIFFIC.ILTY WEAXIMC MUSH
Spanish sneakers have more acknowledged difficulty speaking Du, lish
than other hose sneakers of non-Esglish languages according to the 1990 Census.
A quarter of all those aged five and older who speak Spanish at hone were
reported not to speak English well or not to speak it at all. In contrast,
only 12.9 percent of those epee/dm non-English languages other than banish
were retorted to have difficulty sneaking English. The disparity was greater
for Adults over age seventeen and somewhat leis for school -age children. The
oereentages of banish sneakers and speakers of other non-%glioh languages
with roosted difficulty soea;dng mglish are ales shown in table 2.
SPANISH LANC.DACE MIN:Harr CrIILDRES Tti LIMITED EMCLISH P/K/FICIENCY
As already Indicated. there are presently available no data on how
many adults Erse Sranish language or any other language backgrounds are
limited in the English language skills. including reading and writing as well
as speaking and understanding. needed to succeed economically and socially
in the sainstreaa Eigliah-soeaddng community. However. information is availa-
ble for children. aged five to fourteen. which can be 4PPlied to the 19'10
Census counts of children who speak banish at hone to Produce estimates of the
sosulatton of Spanish language minority children at risk in our society.
ly anolying the rates for children in Seanish-soeaking homes from the 1971
Chi leree's Dig lish and Services Study (CMS). it is estimated that about
2.2 million children who sneak banish at one are limited in the English
language skills needed to succeed in the English-medium school system. In
addition. it is estimated that 400.000 other children in Spanish-sosaking hoses
only sleek English but also lack proficiency in one or acre of the skills seeded
to succeed without reecial assistance in school prograns designed for the
tglish-soeaking majority. There say be other children. who are bilingual
36
but who, because they usually sneak t:nglish, were not repotted as sneaking
Spanish at hone. Some of these children may lack proficiency in English.
At a minimum, then, we estimate that in 1910 there were 2.6 million children
from Spanish- speaking homes, and probably more, who need special help related
to their language background and English proficiency if they are to have an
equal educational orwortunity in our schools.
Like those who speak Spanish at home, children in hoses in which
Snanish is spoken who have limited English proficiency are found in all states.
However, the majority live in a few states Moreover, examination of the
data for standard aetrorolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) within those states
shows that Snanish language minority children with limited English proficiency
are highly concentrated within those states.
Six states were home to at least 100,000 children from Vanish-
sneaking homes with United English proficiency in 1980. These states were
California. Texas, New York, Florida. Illinois and New Jersey. Nearly eight
out of ten of all the children with these characteristics lived in these
states in 1910. In California. nearly half of the LEP children from Snanish-
speaking hones lived in the Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area--the
SMSA with the largest number of such children in the Nation in 1910. Another
12 percent lived in the adjoining SMSA's--Anaheim -Santa Ana-Carden Grove and
Riverside -San Bernardino-Ontario. Three out of five of all LEP children
from Snaniehpsneaking homeS'in California lived in these areas of Los Angeles
and its surroundings in 1980. LEP children from Snanish-sneaking homes in
the states of New York and Npw Jeriey are even more concentrated. Seven
out'of ten of them lived in New York City and its New York and New Jersey
suburbs in 1990 More than 90 oercent of the LEP children in Spanish-speaking
homes in Illinois lived in Chicago in 1980. These data are shown in table 3
41
37
Table 3.--MINIMUM ESTIMATED NIBIBMS OF LIMITED-ENCLISH-PROFICIENT CHILDREN IN
HOMES IN WHICH VANISH IS sratm. BY STATE AND STANDARD METROPOLITAN
STATISTICAL AREA WITH 25.000 OR MORE CHILDREN WHO SPEAK SPANISH AT
HOME: UNITED STATES. 1980
State SMSA
Minimum
estimated
LE?
Home speakers ofSpanish
Estimated chil-dren in Spanish-Sneaking homeswho sneak onlyEnglish but are
also LIPTotalEstisated
LEP
Teta'. all statesand D.C. 2.5564°0 2.947.000 2,151,000 404.000
California 688.000 794.000 580,000 109.000Texas 652.000 758,000 549.000 103.000New York 333.000 3c4,000 250.000 53.000Florida 141,000 163,000 119,000 22.000Illinois 123.000 142,000 104,000 19,000New Jersey 101,000 117,000 85,000 16,000New Mexico 75.000 87,000 63.000 12.000Arizona 74,000 85.000 62.000 12,000Pennsylvania 31,000 36.000 26.000 5,000Colorado 31,000 35,000 26.000 5.000Massachusetts 29.000 34.000 25.000 5.000Connecticut 29.000 34,000 24.000 5.000Ohio 24.000 28,000 21.000 4,000Michigan 23.000 27.000 20.000 4,000
los Angeles-Long Beach. CA 332.000 383,000 279.000 52.000New York. N.Y.-N.J. 307.000 354.000 258,000 49,000Cnicago, IL 115.000 132,000 96,000 18.000Miami. FL 97.000 111,000 81.000 15.000San Antonio. TX 96.000 111,000 81,000 15.000Houston, TX 82,000 94.000 69.000 13,000Dallas -Fort Worth, TX 48,000 55.000 40,000 8.000Anaheim-Santa Ana-GardenCrowe. CA 43.000 50.000 36.000 7.000San Diego. CA 40,000 46.000 34,000 6.000Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 39.000 45,000 33.000 6.000San Francisco, CA 38.000 44.00o 32.000 6.000Phoenix. AZ 31.000 36.000 26.000 5.000Newark. N.J. 28.000 32.000 24.000 4,000Philadel-hia, PA 24.000 27,000 20.000 4,000an Jose. CA 24,000 27.000 20,000 4,000
SOURCES: Estimates of home sneakers of Snanish from U.S. Bureau of the Census.1990 Census of vorulation and Housing. Sumnlementary Renort, 9HC90-S1-1. Provisional estimates of Social. Economic, and Housing Charac-
teristics (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March198E): LE? rates from J. Michael O'Malley. Children's aielish andServices Studv Language minority Children with Limited EmclishPreCciency in the United States (Roselyn, VA: National Clearing-house for Bilingual Education, 1961).
38
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. PFOFICIENCY STUDY
As I have already indicated, there are Presently no data available
on the =fiber of Sranish language or other language minority adults with limited
Et lick Proficiency. The CMS Provides data only for children. Moreover,
the CMS sample was a wall one. It Provided separate estimates only for
five geographic areasthe Nation as a whole, California, New York, Texas and
all other states in the argregate--and for two non - English language backgrounds--
5-An:eh and all other non - English languages in the aggregate. The sample was
based upon the distribution of non - English mother bonnie *ovulations in the
1970 Census Not only have language minorities increased in size since 1970,
but they have moved atout the country To remedy some of the defects in the
CMS, to rerorm the CMS test with a new sample of English language background
children, and to test the English language proficiency of adults for the first
time, the Department of Education contracted with the Bureau of the Census to
conduct the English Language Proficiency Study (5.PS) in summer 1982.
The ELPS sample was based upon restonses to the language questions
in the 1990 Census. It will yield separate direct estimates of the size of
the Population of children and adults with limited English proficiency living
in Slanish-sneaking homes in California, Florida, New York, Texas and the
remainder of the country, as well as estimates of the size of the grow in the
country as t whole. It will yield direct estimates of the size of the 1.9"
Porulation from a number of other linruage backgrounds in the states and re o-
rraPhic areas in which they are concentrated or in the country as a whole
The EL'S has not yet been completed When findings are available, they will
make possible the development of L' ratios for application to the 1980 Census
data for all states and language groups with sufficient numbers in the popu-
lation The ELI'S will provide new information on the numbers and characteristics
43
39
of L' children. It will Provide information for the first tine on the numbers
and characteristics of LEP adults.
The MPS will make possible additional study of the properties
of the teat used in the CS in 1976. The C:SS norr.ing group consisted of
children desimated by their schools as fluent EPrlish speakers. These were
children who were achieving normally in school. In the ELPS, the CEO test
has been administered to a sample of the total school-age population in homes
in which only English is sooken. As we know from recent studies of U.S., edu-
cation, many of these children are not achieving normally. Moreover, some
of thole lack oroficiencv in Pore of the 7hglish language skills needed to
succeed in school even though they come from English- speaking homes. The MPS
findings on the oerfomance of children from homes in which only English is
snoken will be used to examine the test scores used to separate the language
minority children who are proficient in Diglish from those who are not. De-
pending on the results, the test scores may be revised. Revised scores will
Produce different .estimates of the size of the group in need of special Pro-
grams and services. Moreover, the characteristics of the morning group used
in the 5.PS will determine the definition of limited English proficiency. If
the norm is based upon the average scores of all children in English-speaking
homes, including those who are not achieving in school, or if it is based upon
scores adjusted for socio-economic statuson the basis that low socio-econo-
ic status language minority children should not be expected to perform at a
higher standard than other lox SM children or that STS and not the language
factors is the chief determinant of educational disadvantage of larumage minor-
ity children- -then the estimates resulting from the application of the MPS
findings to the 1960 Census data will renresent, not the numbers of children
in Spanish- speaking and other langrage minority homes who need help to (succeed
educationally, but the minim= numbers who need help to keep um with the least
advantaged children in our schools. This is an isoortant distinction.
44
40
The adult test will be normed for the first time on the basis of
the MPS results. The characteristics of the owlish language norming group
for adults have implications for the definition of adults with limited English
Proficiency and the size of the ',rot= with soecia.l needs similar to those
for the children Those of us who care about issues of equity in our society
must understand these inplicatior.s. When the .PS findings are released,
we must be sure we understand what they mean.
WORK WHICH REMAINS TO BE DOHR
As I have indicated earlier, we do not yet have the counts from
the 1980 Census of the children and adults in households in which Spanish and
other non-Lng lish languages are spoken. We need these counts to estimate
the size of the school-age Spanish language and other language minority Popu-
lations and to estimate the size of the adult population currently in Stmnish
language or other language minority environments. We need to analyze the
language resPonses of Hispanics to determine how many sneak Spanish at home
and how many live in hoses in which others speak Spanish. Conversely,
we need to analyze the ethnicity of those who reported that they soeak Spanish
and those in Smnish-speaking households to determine how many of these groups
are Hispanic Until these analyses are Performed, we have no way of knowing
how many His:Ades are exposed to or use Spanish at home and we have no way
of knowine how many People who are x used to or use Spanish at hoes are not
Hispanic
The z;mglish lar.r.tage Proficiency Study should be completed as
soon as possible. This must be done to Provide an objective measure of the
size of the Population of children and adults who cannot achieve their full
potential in our society without soecial assistance. If the ELPS Provides
45
41
such a measure, sensitive to the iesces of equity, we can have confidence
in aPplying the ALPS limited English proficiency ratios to the 1990 Census
data. We will then be able to examine the role of English lanitunge Profi-
ciency in exmlaining the differences in educational, economic and social well-
being between minorities and the majority and among the minority nouns. We
will then be able to assess the needs and Plan prorrams and cervices which will
truly assure the equal opportunity of Hispanics and language minorities in
our society.
46
42
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED 9Y ODNGRPSSHAN BANNPMEYER
DOR01 Ily WAGGONER1900 WATSON PLACE, N. W.WASHINGTON, I/ C. 20016September 10, 1991
1. Elbee yourttestimony suggest that the federal government will bebetter able to use new data on 7.)nglish proficiency in Hisoanichouseholds in designing national educational nrograms than stateor local education agencies in setting up their own programs?
My testiiony addresses the need for accurate information on the numbers
and characteristics of limited-English-proficient children and adults,
esoecially the need to realize the ootential of the 1990 Census and
the Fnglish Language Proficiency Study (ELPS) to help us obtain this
information. The advantage of the Census and national studies such as
the ELPS is that they enable us to look at relative needs and at the
distribution of populations with certain characteristics among the states
and localities. The determination of the extent to which federal assis-
tance is renuired or may be useful to help local school districts de-
velop and implement certain types of programs to meet the educational
needs of their students depends upon the availability and accuracy
of infOrmation of this kind. And whether or not the federal government
olays any role, this type of information is essential for the states
and localities concerned.
2. With regard to your statement on nage 11, are you suggesting adual standard of exoectation and achievement for school childrenbased upon socio-economic status? How would such standards beapplied?
ram concerned that the TLPS results my be used to ,justify a lower
standard of expectation for language minority children based on the
fact that many of them come from low socio- economic backgrounds and
that many English-sneaking children from low socio-economic backgrounds
are not achieving in school. It seems to me that enual educational
47
43
onnartunitv means that all children receive the help they need to
succeed in school and become productive members of the society to
the fill extent of their notential. Porlinrut:tically- different
ehildren this means help which is sensitive to their snecial language
needs. I do not accent that those children, given appropriate assis-
tance, cannot succeed with the best of our children, regardless of
the socio-economic status of their families. FUrthermore, I do not
believe that because some children from GAglish-speaking backgrounds
may also have difficulties related to the 47nilish languame demands
of the school, language minority children should be denied school
nrorrams related to their language backgrounds and level of English
Proficiency.
48:.
44
Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Dr. Waggoner. It is a very informativereport, and I certainly do appreciate the information. It was veryinteresting. Of course, it kind of took me back to the years when Iwas a classroom teacher. We had a lot of Spanish-speaking citizens,and back to some of our testing programs and other language profi-ciency programs. We certainly do appreciate that.
I should point out at this time, that after we've heard from all ofour witnesses, we will have a period set aside for questions.
Our next witness is Dr. George Borjas from the department ofeconomics, University of California, Santa Barbara.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE BORJAS, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS,UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA
Dr. BORJAS. Thank you Madam Chairman, Congressman Garcia.I am very honored to be here and briefly summarize the results ofour research program on Hispanics. In my work, I have focused ontwo related problems. First, how do Hispanic, and particularly His-panic immigrants, do in the U.S. labor market. Second, what is theimpact of Hispanics on the earnings and employment of non-His-panics?
The answer to the first of these questions as to how Hispanics doin the labor market essentially depends on the definition of theHispanic population. What I mean by this statement is best madeclear by the fact that there is a very large variance in the earningsand employment characteristics of Hispanics by both nationalorigin and immigration status. For example, within the immigrantpopulation, the wage rate of Cuban immigrants exceeds that ofMexican immigrants by over 20 percent, and exceeds that of PuertoRicans by 13 percent. Similarly, the probability of being employedis about 80 percent for a Mexican or Cuban immigrant, but onlyabout 75 percent for a Puerto Rican born in Puerto Rico, and evenless, 67 percent for a Puerto Rican born in the mainland here 10years, to over 20 percent for those who have been here 20 years,and to over 40 percent for those who have been here about 30years. In other words, the wage rates of Hispanic immigrants, justlike the wage rates of other immigrants of non-Hispanic originrises very rapidly after immigration.
However, the rate at which wage rates rise after immigrationvaries tremendously among the various Hispanic national groups,and particularly the rate at which the earnings of Cuban immi-grants is much greater than the growth that is experienced by theother Hispanic groups. As an example, the average Mexican immi-grant must wait about 15 years before his wage rate significantlyexceeds he rate of a just recently arrived Mexican immigrant. Thewage of a Puerto Rican immigrant from Puerto Rico to the UnitedStates will have to wait over 25 years until his wage exceeds thatof a recently arrived Puerto Rican in the United States.
On the other hand, the earnings of Cubans in 5 years they earn17 percent more than most arriving, within 10 years they earn 30percent more, and in 20 years they earn 40 percent more. Thepoint I am trying to make is that even though the wage rates ofHispanics as a whole grow very rapidly after immigration, there issuch a large dispersion in Hispanic population that really doesn't
tiJ
45
make very much sense. We are talking about a single Hispanic ex-perience in the labor market.
The second finding in my research is that the main factor re-sponsible for this differential in the rate of adaptation to the U.S.labor market is the variation in the amount of schooling receivedafter arriving in the United States.
For example, suppose we consider the Hispanic immigrants whoarrive from 1965 to 1969. By 1976, Cuban immigrants had obtainedonly 2 years more schooling than Mexican immigrants who arrivedat the same time under the same conditions. Since the wage rate isvery responsive to schooling, this schooling differential and theamount of schooling that came after immigration is a major factorin explaining why the wage rate of Cuban immigrants grows muchfaster after immigration than the wage rate of other Hispanic im-migrants.
A. third finding is that the labor supply of most Hispanic immi-grants, whether in terms of employment rates or annual hours ofwork, is very high. Hispanic immigrants tend to work significantlymore hours than either the Hispanic or non-Hispanic native born.Moreover, the high level of work effort exhibited by Hispanic im-migrants is not affected the assimilation process. In other words,first generation Hispanic immigrants, like all first 'ration im-migrants, will tend to have very large levels of :k loor supplythroughout their U.S. labor market experience.
The fourth finding is that the main factor causing wage differen-tials between Hispanics and non-Hispanics is the low levels of laborsupply for Hispanic groups. For example, Hispanics have 10.4 yearsof schooling on the average compared to 11.1 years for black males,and 12.7 for white non-Hispanic males.
If, on the average, an additional year of education raises thewage rate by about 10 percent, which is what many labor marketstudies have found, the 2-year-educational gap between Hispanicsand non-Hispanic whites translates into a 20-percent wage differen-tial.
The main point I am trying to make is educational gap betweenHispanics and non-Hispanics ranks as the single most importantcause of the low wage rate.
All these findings provide an intricate collage of how Hispanicsdo in the labor market, of the economic diversity in the Hispanicpopulation, and of the assimilation of Hispanic immigrants intoAmerican society. In my research I have also analyzed the questionof how the emergence of the Hispanic population has affected theearnings and employment of the non-Hispanic population. The sig-nificance of this type of research doesn't really need to be empha-sized. It is often alleged, for example, in the popular media, thatHispanics have taken jobs away.
These results clearly contradict the conventional wisdom of His-panics taking jobs away from blacks. In contrast, my research withthe 1970 census points to another group of individuals who didenter the labor market in very large numbers, and who may bepartly responsible for the deteriorating earnings and employmentconditions of particularly young blacks, That competing group wasnot the Hispanic population, but rather the large number of whitewomen who have joined the labor force. t.
26-464 0-83-4 50
46
Let me finish my comments by noting that even though scholarlyresearch on Hispanics in the labor market has come a long way ina very short time period, it still has a long way to go. Perhaps themost pressing question is to determine why the educational attain-ment of most Hispanic groups is far short of even black educationalattainment. The resolution of this question would go a long way inhelping policymakers make the appropriate decisions if a policygoal is to be the improvement of the economic status of Hispanics.il'hank you very much.
[The statement of Dr. Borjas together with his response to writ,ten questions from Mr. Dannemeyer, follows:]
51
47
HISPANICS IN THE LABOR MARKET: THEIR STATUS AND THEIR IMPACT
George J. Borjas*
A large amount of research on the importance of race and
gender as determinants of labor market outcomes has been conducted
in the past 20 years. This research has mostly concentrated on
documenting the experiences of blacks and women in the U.S. labor
market. It has been found that blacks and women have significantly
lower wage rates than white men of "similar" skills.
This literature is remarkable for its (almost) total disinterest
in the economic status of other minority groups in the economy.
Recently, however, this omission has been addressed by a few
social scientists who recognized the socioeconomic and political
implications of the "emergence" of the Hispanic minority in the
United States. Although scientific studies of Hispanics in the
labor market are quite recent, several important findings have
emerged even at this early stage.
I would like to take this opportunity to briefly summarize
the results of my research program on Hispanics in the labor
market.' In my research I have focused on two related problems.
First, how do Hispanic, and particularly Hispanic immigrants, do
in the U.S. labor market? Second, what is the impact of Hispanics
on the earnings and employment of non-Hispanics?
*Professor of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara.This testimony was prepared for presentation before the Committeeon Post Office and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Census and Pop-ulation, U.S. House of Representatives, September 13, 1983.
1See the bibliography for a list of relevant papers.
52I.
48
The answer to tbe question of how Hispanics do in the labor
market essentially depends on the definition of tbe Hispanic
population. The meaning of ibis statement is best made clear by
looking at Table 1 of the paper where I summarize tbe earnings and
employment cbaracteristics of various male Hispanic and non-
Hispanic groups. The most striking result in Table 1 is the wry
large variance in the earnings and employment cbaracteristics of
Hispanics by national origin and immigration status. For example,
within the immigrant population, tbe wage rate of Cuban immigrants
exceeds that of Mexican immigrants by over 20 percent, and exceeds
tbat of Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico by about 13 percent.
Similarly, tbe probability of being employed is about 80 percent
for a Mexican or Cuban immigrant, but only about 75 percent for a
Puerto Rican born in Puerto Rico, and even less - 67 percent - for
a Puerto Rican born in the "mainland".
The main lesson of these statistics is that tbere is a very
large degree cf dispersion within the Hispanic population. In
fact, tbe differences within tbe Hispanic population are as large
as the differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. This
finding tells us that there is no single "Hispanic experience" in
the labor market. Rather, how Hispanics do depends on wbere tbey
came from, on whether or not they are immigrants, and on a variety
of other factors.
My researcb on the wage and employment cbaracteristics of tbe
Hispanic population led to several significant findings:
53
49
1. The earnings of Hispanic immigrants in the United States
show the same basic patterns exhibited by the earnings of non-
Hispanic immigrants. Earnings are lowest immediately after immi-
gration and rise as assimilation into the U.S. labor market takes
place. Ho.ever, the rate at which wages respond to the assimila-
tion process - that is, the rate at which earnings grow after the
immigrant arrives in this country - varies significantly among the
various Hispanic national groups. In particular, the 'ate at
which the e.rnings of Cuban immigrants grow over time is signifi-
cantly greater than the growth rates experienced by other Hispanic
groups. In other words, Cuban immigrants adapt to the U.S. labor
market much faster than any of the other groups.
2. The main factor responsible for this differential in the
rate of adaptation to the U.S. labor market is the variation in
the amount of schooling received by the groups after arriving in
this country. For example, among immigrants arriving in the
1965-1969 period, by 1976 Cuban immigrants had obtained over 2
years more schooling than Mexican immigrants who arrived at the
same time with the same initial qualifications. This schooling
differential is a major factor in explaining why the wage rate of
Cuban immigrants grows much more rapidly over time than the wage
rate of other Hispanic immigrants.
3. The labor supply of most Hispanic immigrants - either in
terms of employment rates or annual hours of work - is quite high.
Hispanic immigrants tend to work significantly more hours than
54
50
either the Hispanic or the non-Hispanic native born. Moreover,
the high level of work effort exhibited by Hispanic immigrants is
not affected by the assimilation process. In other words, first
generation Hispanic immigrants will tend to have large levels of
labor supply throughout their ".S. labor market experience.
4. The population of individuals born in Puerto Rico but
currently working within the 50 states is exceptional since - for
given skills - it is characterized by both the lowest wage rates
and the lowest levels of labor supply of all Hispanic groups. la
fact, the labor market characteristics of this group are not very
different from the characteristics exhibited by similarly- skilled
blacks.
5. The main factor causing wage differentials between
Hispanics and non-Hispanics is the low levels of educational
attainment in the Hispanic samples. For example, Hispanic males
have about 10.4 years of schooling, compared to 11.1 years for
black males, and 12.7 years for white, non-Hispanic males. This
educational gap ranks as the single most important cause of the
wage differential between Hispanics and non-Hispanics.
All these findings provide an intricate collage of how Hispanics
do in the labor market, of the economic diversity in the Hispanic
population, and of the assimilation of Hispanic immigrants into
American society. In my research I have also analyzed the question
of how the emergence of the Hispanic minority has affected the
55.
51
earnings and employment of the non- Hispanic population. The
significance of these Lyr:s of questions does not need to be
emphasized. For example, it is often alleged in the popular media
that Hispanics (or, Hispanic immigrants) have "taken jobs away"
from blacks or other groups in the labor market, thereby hampering
the economic development of these groups. These discussions
implicitly assume that black and Hispanic labor are substitutable
input in the production process, so that firms can easily inter-
change the two types of workers. In other words, as Hispanics
come into the labor market firms can easily get rid of their black
labor and hire the Hispanics for these jobs. Whether or not
Hispanic and non-Hispanic labor can be easily interchanged by the
employer is an open empirical question.
My oun research into this problem using both the 1970 Census
and the 1976 Survey of Income and Education provides very strong
evidence that Hispanics have not had the negative impact on the
earnings and employment of various non-Hispanic groups that is
often assumed in the popular media. If, for example, blacks and
Hispanics were easily interchangeable then we should observe that
in labor markets where Hispanics entered in large numbers the
economic status of blacks should have declined. In fact, neither
the Census data nor the Survey of Income and Education shows this
to be the case. The data clearly show that the entry of Hispanics
in the local labor market did not lead to a decline in black
earnings and employment, or in the earnings and employment of any
other non-Hispanic group. Rather, the emergence of Hispanics as a
50
52
large group in tr,e labor market may have led to a small increase
in black earnings and employment. These results clearly show that
the conventional wisdom of Hispanics "taking jobs away" from
blacks is not supported by the data. In contrast, my research
with the 1970 Census points to another group of individuals who
did enter the labor market in very large numbers in the postwar
period, and who may be partly responsible for the deteriorating
earnings and employment conditions of particularly young blacks.
That competing group was not the Hispanic population, but rather
the large number of women who have joined the labor force.
Let me finish my comments by stating that even though scholarly
research on Hispanics in the labor market has come a long way in a
very short time period, it still has a long way to go. Perhaps
the most pressing question is to determine why the educational
attainment of most Hispanic groups is far short of even black
educational attainment. The resolution of this question would go
a long way in helping policy makers make the appropriate decisions
if a policy goal is to be the improvement of the economic status
of Hispanics.
5 7
58
Table 1
Comparative Labor Force Characteristics of Hispanic and Non - Hispanic Men, 1975
SampleWageRate
AnnualEarnings
Employment
ProbabilityAnnualHours*
MexicanImmigrants 3.44 6136 .80 1826
Puerto RiessImmigrants 3.75 6542 .75 1751
CubanImmig 4.24 7570 .80 1788
Central andSouth AmericanImmigrants 3.68 6761 .85 1926
Other HispanicImmigrants 4.01 7369 .79 1845
MexicanNatives 4.10 6816 .79 1661
Puerto RicanNatives 4.09 6953 .66 1701
Other HispanicNatives 4.64 8333 .78 1795
Blacks 4.24 6816 .73 1607
Non-HispanicUbite Immigrants 5.26 9867 .80 1876
Non-HispanicWhite Natives 4.98 8982 .78 1804
Source: 1976 Survey of Income and Education.
Note: "Other" refers to the residual classification of Hispanics. "Natives" are thoseborn in the United States.
*These are average figures in the subsample of working men.
64
Bibliography
Borjas, George J. "The Earnings of Male Hispanic Immigrants in the
United States," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April
1982, pp. 343-353.
Borjas, George J. "The Substitutability of Black, Hispanic, and
White Labor," Economic Inquiry, January 1982, pp. 93-106.
Borjas, George J. "The Labor Supply of Male Hispanic Immigrants in
the United States," mimeograph, June 1983.
Borjas, George J. "The Economic Status of Male Hispanic Migrants
and Natives in the U.S.," forthcoming in Research in Labor
Economics, Volume 6, 1984.
Borjas, George J. "The Demographic Determinants of the Demand for
Black Labor," presented at the National Bureau of Economic
Research Conference on Black Youth Unemployment, August 1983.
59
55
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF "THE DEMOGRAPHIC DETERMINANTS OF THE DEMAND
FOR BLACK LABOR" BY GEORGE J. WORJAS
This paper has attempted to estimate how the demand for black labor is
affected by changes in the demographic characteristics of the local labor
market. The main tool of the analysis was the use of the Generalized
Leontief production technology. This functional form has the advantage
of yielding linear in-parameters marginal productivity equations so that
wage regressions at the individual level can be interpreted in terms of a
labor demand framework. Using the 1970 Public Use Samples from the U.S.
Census several important empirical results were obtained:
1. Black males are strong substitutes with women in the production
process. In fact, women tend to be substitutes with all males, but black
males are particularly vulnerable to the increased entry of women in the
labor market.
2. Black males have not been adversely affected by the entry of
immigrants in the labor market. This complementarity holds for both Hispanic
and non-Hispanic immigrants.
3. These main results are not sensitive to major changes in the specif-
ication, samples or estimation methodology. Thus, for example, the adverse
effect on black earnings of increased female employment is true both for wage
rates and annual earnings; in the North and in the South; among young black
men and old black men; and in the manufacturing sector.
'60
56
4. The analysis showed that estimates of the production function
parameters can also be obtained by studying the labor force participation
behavior of individuals. These employment regressions indicated that
indeed women do "take jobs away" from black males since increased female
employment leads to lower black male participation rates.
S. The simulation of the estimated production function reveals that
the current trends in female labor force participation will result in a
4-10 percent decline in the black male wage (relative to the white native
male wage).
6. The simulation analysis also reveals that the continuing entry
of women into the labor market will have a particularly adverse impact
on the earnings and labor force participation rates of young black men.
In fact, much of the decline in the participation rates of young black
men in the postwar period can be directly attributed to the rapid in-
crease in the number of working women.
TO: Honorable William E. Dannemeyer
FROM: George J. Borjas
RE: Response to Questions for Hearningof September 13, 1983.
There is no convincing explanation in the economic literature whichexplains why Hispanics tend to stay in school a shorter period of time
than non-Hispanics. Various reasons - such as discrimination and languageproblems - have been explored but no data exists which would allow a testamong these competing hypotheses.
With regards to my own work, my research has been based on two re-presentative samples of the national population: the 1970 Public UseSample from the U.S. Census, and the 1976 Survey of Income and Education.
61
57
Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Dr.Porter, department of sociology, Johns Hopkins University.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALEJANDRO PORTES, DEPARTMENT OFSOCIOLOGY, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Dr. PORTES. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I amvery honored to be here and be able to share some of the results ofmy research with the panel. In my presentation today I would liketo focus on recent immigration from Latin America for two rea-sons. First, it is the central factor accounting for the growth of theHispanic population at a faster rate than other ethnic groups inrecent years. Second, it has been the target of some negative cam-paigns against the alien invasion.
Major and minor immigrations to the United States have beenroutinely subjected to a degree of hostility by the native majority.Though never light or easy to bear, the victimization of immigrantgroups has varied in degrees from quite prejudice to mob lynchingand official exclusion from the country. Examples abound: the anti-German riots in the Middle West more than a century ago, theAmerican Protective Association created to fight the Irish, the Chi-nese Exclusion Act, the national quota laws to keep out Italians,Poles, and Jews.
After a generation or two, most immigrant groups have managedto adapt in one way or another to American society. Some in thesecond or third generations even join the perennial nativist chorusagainst the largest immigrant minority.
Ironically, some of the groups which were suppose to representthe greatest threat to the fiber of the Nation, have been held up,two or three decades later, as exemplary citizens and contributorsto our wealth and culture. This is the case of the Chinese, barredfrom entry before the end of the nineteenth century, and of theJapanese, excluded from the land in the 1910's and from propertyalthogether at the start of World War II. It is also the case of theJews whose children were kept out of Eastern universities by anarbitrary quota system. Every major rise in immigration has beenfollowed by the rise of nativist alarm and movements designed tokeep out the new foreigners. The period after World War II andespecially after the 1965 Immigration Act is no exception. The ex-clusionary sentiment has been retailored, however, to fit the char-acteristics of the new immigrants. Two of these are most signifi-cant: First, major source countries of immigration are now locatedin the Third World, primarily Asia and Latin America. Second, asubstantial portion of the new immigration enters the country ille-gally, a practice uncommon in earlier periods of high immigration.
The substantial rise in the Latin American population of theUnited States during the last two decades does not have its originsin a continent-wide outflow. The overwhelming majority of recentLatin American immigrants come instead from countries in theCaribbean basin, including Mexico and Colombia. Despite this geo-graphic homogeneity, the factors underlying the inflow are quitediverse. Their coincidence in time is, to a certain extent, fortuitous.The Cuban revolution, which sent the entire prerevolutionarymiddle class into exile, coincided with the acceleration of Mexican
64 ;
58
labor emigration. The Nicaraguan revolution and the Salvadorancivil war which are generating a new wave of political exiles runparallel with the acceleration of undocumented labor immigrationfrom the Dominican Republic and Colombia.
It is plausible to argue that these diverse forces of outmigrationhave common roots in the particular style of hegemony exercisedby the United States over the region. The diffusion of consumptionexpectations bearing no relation to the economic possibilities of themajority generated both discontent and migratory pressures. U.S. -supported regimes frequently employed their resources to entrenchprivilege and further oppress their populations. When in trouble,they looked north for salvation. When finally defeated, the former-ly dominant classes moved en masse to the country on which theyhad depended. Even in less oppressive situations, the predominantmodel of development continuously increased economic inequalitydriving popular masses out of the land and then out of the countryaltogether. From this perspective, recent Caribbean immigration tothe United States may be seen as part of a historical dialecticwhereby a particular form of global hegemony turns on itself, withunexpected and often disruptive results.
This interpretation is, however, partial. Before it is recast intothe themes of the "alien invasion" or the "Latinization of theUnited States," a look at the figures is in order. From 1890 to 1920,the peak period of pre-World War II immigration, 18.2 million im-migrants were admitted to the United States. This figure included3.8 million Italians, 3 million Russian Jews, and 3.1 million Polesand others from the eastern reaches of the Austro-Hungarianempire. Total immigration during those 30 years represented 17.1percent of the U.S. population in 1920. Italians alone accounted for3.6 percent. Not all immigrants stayed, however, so that, by 1920,first generation foreigners represented 13.2 percent of the popula-tion. Economically active immigrants arriving in 1900 added 1 per-cent more workers to the American labor force. Five years later,they added 3 percent and, in 1908, 4 percent. In 1910, immigrantsrepresented 21 percent of the entire civilian labor force.
These figures can be compared with those from a similar 30-yearperiod, 1948-78. During this time, 9.5 million immigrants were ad-mitted to the United States. Mexicans were the single largest na-tional contingent with 1.4 million registered entries. The WestIndies, including Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and therest of the Antilles sent another 1.2 million permanent immi-grants. If all legal immigrants who came to the country remainedin it, they would represent 4.6 percent of the total population in1978 or one-fourth er the corresponding figure in 1920. Mexican im-migrants alone wou'i represent less than 1 percent. In 1970, theforeign-born were in fact 4.7 of the total population or about one-third of what they were 50 years before. Economically active immi-grants arriving in a given year never added more than three-tenthsof 1 percent to the country's labor force. The figure is about one-tenth of the contribution made by immigrant workers in the 1890-1920 period.
These numbers can be immediately challenged by pointing outthat the bulk of immigration to the United States at present is notlegal, but undocumented and that most illegal immigrants come
63
59
from Mexico and other Caribbean countries. The point would takeus into a discussion about the size of the illegal inflow, a tired exer-cise by now. Estimates have ranged from the millions, figures fre-quently quoted by restrictionists, to the few hundred thousands, afigure reported by a large study recently completed by the MexicanGovernment. Everyone agrees that apprehension figures reportedby the Immigration and Naturalization Service are at best a veryimperfect estimate of the magnitude of illegal immigration.
There is an emerging consensus, based on recent empirical stud-ies of undocumented Mexican, Colombian, and Dominican immi-grants, that a substantial proportion return to their home coun-tries after a relatively short period in the United States. This is es-pecially true of Mexicans. The pattern of return migration andeven of cyclical migration across the border makes it very difficultto estimate what is the actual size of the permanent undocumentedpopulation of the United States and what is its impact on theAmerican society and economy. One thing is certain, however, andthis is that not even the wildest estimates place the number of im-migrants now in the United States at a level comparable to the1890-1920 period.
The number of illegal immigrants during the last 30 years wouldhave had to be 27.3 million in order for total immigration to reachthe 1920 level relative to the native population. The number of un-documented immigrants now in the United States would have to beapproximately 17.4 million in order for the foreign-born populationto represent the same proportion of the total that it did in 1920. Tomy knowledge, not even the most exaggerated accounts have comeclose to these numbers.
The point is that the current wave of immigration to the UnitedStates must be placed in historical context. The present period isdefinitely one of high immigration. However, the overall signifi-cance of immigration, both in demographic and economic terms, isbut a fraction of what it was at the beginning of the century. If weare assisting to the "Mexicanization" or the "Latin Americaniza-tion" of the United States, it is only in the same sense, and to amuch lesser extent, than it was "Italianized" and "South Euro-peanized" a few decades earlier. Rhetorical statements of this kinddraw attention to the fact that immigrant flows have had signifi-cant economic and cultural impact in the areas where they settle.They conceal, however the equally important fact that each foreignminority, no matter how large, has been absorbed in the UnitedStates without altering the fundamental economic and politicalstructures of the country. This absorption, or what I would preferto call incorporation of immigrants has not occurred, however, in auniform manner. Different modes of incorporation of recent immi-grant groups is the second topic which I would like to discusstoday.
For the sake of time, I would note that the second part of mypresentation is in my statement so as to give time for questions. Iwould request that it be included in the record.
[The statement of Dr. Portes follows:)
64
The Latin Americanizationof the United States?
Alejandro PortesProfessor of Sociology
60
"Mexicans give rise to little race
friction, but do impose upon thecommunity a large number of dependents,misdemeanants, and petty criminalswhere they settle in any considerable
number."(Dillingham Commission, 1911)
"If the millions of Asians who wanted
(191Am 118A;"*" 1);*(to invade this country every year werepermitted to come in, this country isabsolutely sure to become a black-and-yellow country within a few generations."
(Victor Berger, founder ofthe American SocialistParty, 1907)
The Latin Americanization of the United States?
1. The Relative Size of Immigration
Major and minor immigrations to the United States have been routinely
subjected to a degree of hostility by the native majority. Though never light
or easy to bear, the victimization of immigrant groups has varied in degrees
from quiet prejudice to mob lynching and official exclusion from the country.
Examples abound: the anti-German riots in the Middle West more than a century
ago, the American Protective Association created to fight the Irish, the
Chinese Exclusion Act, tne national quota laws to keep out Italians, Poles,
and Jews.
Ate" a generation or two, most immigrant groups have managed to adapt
in one way or another to American society. Some in the second or third
65rzt
61
generations even join the perennial nativist chorus against the latest immigrant
minority.Ironically, some of the groups which were supposed to represent
the greatest threat to the fiber of the nation, have been held up, two or
three decades later, as exemplary citizens and contributors to our wealth and
culture. This is the case of the Chinese, barred from entry before the end
of the nineteenth century, and of the Japanese, excluded from the land in the
1910's and from property altogether at the start of World War 11. It is also
the case of the Jews whose children were kept out of Eastern universities by
an arbitrary quota system. Every major rise in immigration has been followed
by the rise of nativist alarm and movements designed to keep out the new
foreigners. The period after World War 11 and especially after the 1965
Immigration Act is no exception. The exclusionary sentiment has been re-
tailored, however, to fit the characteristics of the new immigrants. Two of
these are most significant: I) major source countries of immigration are now
located in the Third World, primarily Asia and Latin America. 2) A substantial
portion of the new immigration enters the country illegally, a practice
uncommon in earlier periods of high immigration.
The substantial rise in the Latin American population of the United
States during the last two decades does not have its origins in a continent-
wide outflow. The overwhelring majo..ity of recent Latin American immigrants
come instead from countries in the Caribbean basin, including Mexico and
Colombia. Despite this geographic homodenelty, tne factors underlying the
inflow are dote ds,e.'se. Their coincidence in time is, to a certain extent,
fortuitous. The Can Revolutlo!, which sent the entire pe-revoiutionary
riddle-class into exile, coint,ded with the accele'ation of Mexican labor
26-464 0-83-5
62
emigration. The Nicaraguan Revolution and the Salvadoran Civil War which
are generating a new wave of political exiles run parallel with the accelera-
tion of undocumented labor immigration from the Dominican Republic and
Colombia.
It is plausible to argue that these diverse forces of outmigration have
common roots in the particular style of hegemony exercised by the United
States over the region. The diffusion of consumption expectations bearing
no relation to the economic possibilities of the majority generated both
discontent and migratory pressures. U.S.-supported regimes frequently
employed their resources to entrench privilege and further oppress their
populations. When in trouble, they looked North for salvation. When finally
defeated, the formerly dominant classes moved en mass, to the country on
which they had depended. Even in less oppressive situations, the predominant
model of development continuously increased economic inequolity driving
popular masses out of the land and then out of the country altogether. From
this perspective, recent Caribbean immigration to the United States may be
seen as part of a historical dialectic whereby a particular form of global
hegemony turns on itself, with unexpected and often disruptive results.
This interpretation is, however, partial. Before it is recast into the
themes of the "alien invasion" or the latinization of the United States,"
a look at the figures is in order. From 1890 to 1920, the peak period of
pre-World War 11 immigration, 18.2 million immigrants were admitted to the
United States. This figure included 3.8 million !tatians, 3 million Russian
Jews, and 3.1 million Poles and others from the eastern reaches of the
Austro- Hungarian empire. Total immigration during those 30 years represented
67.
63
17.1 percent of the U.S. population in 1920. Italians alone accounted for
3.6 percent. Not all immigrants stayed, however, so that, by 1920, first-
generation foreigners represented 13.2 percent of the population. Economic-
ally active immigrants arriving in 1900 added 1 percent more workers to the
American labor force. Five years later, they added 3 percent and, in 1908,
4 percent. In 1910, immigrants represented 21 percent of the entire civilian
labor force.
These figures can be co -pared with those from a similar 30-year period,
1948-1978. During this tire, 9.5 million immigrants were admitted to the
United States. Mexicans were the single largest national contingent with 1.4
million registered entries. The West Indies, including Cuba, the Dominican
Republic, Jamaica, and the rest of tne Antilles sent another 1.2 million
Permanent immigrants. If all legal immigrants who cane to the country remained
in it, they would represent 4.6 percent of the total population 'n 1978 or
one-fourth o' the corresponding figure in 1920. Mexican immigrants alone
would represent less than 1 percent. In 1970. the foreign-born were in fact
4.7 of the total population or about one-third of what they were fifty years
before. Economically active immigrants arriving in a given year never added
rare than three-tenths of one percent to the country's labor force. The
'figure is aoout one -tenth c' the contribution made by immigrant workers in
the 1890-1920 perioc.
These nutiers can be immediately challenged by pointing out that the
b.;'k s' imrigratoh to the United States at present is not legal, but un-
documented anc teat m:ust illecal imriorants come from Mexico and other Caribbean
countries. The port would tare us irto a discussion about tre size of tne
68.
64
illegal inflow, a tired exercise by now. Estimates have ranged from the
millions, figures frequently quoted by restrictionists, to the-few hundred
thousandths, a figure reported by a large study recently completed by the
Mexican government. Everyone agrees that apprehension figures reported by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service are at best a very imperfect
estimate of the magnitude of illegal immigration.
There is an emerging consensus, based on recent empirical studies of
undocumented Mexican, Colombian, and Dominican immigrants, that a substantial
proportion return to their home countries after a relatively short period
in the United States. This is especially true among Mexicans. The pattern
of return migration and even of cyclical migration across the border makes
it very difficult to estimate what is the actual size of the permanent
undocumented population of the United States and what is its impact in
American society and economy. One thing is certain, however, and this is
that not even the wildest estimates place the number of immigrants now in
the United States at a level comparable to the 1890-1920 period.
The number of illegal immigrants during the last 30 years would have
had to be 27.3 million in order for total immigration to reach the 1920
level relative to the native population. The number of undocumented immi-
grants now in the United States would have to be approximately 17.4 million
in order for the foreign-born population to represent the same proportion
of the total that it did in 1920. To my knowledge, not even the most
exaggerated accounts have come close to these numbers.
The point is that the current wave of immigration to the United States
must be placed in historical context. The present period is definitely one
69
65
of high immigration. However, the overall significance of immigration. both
in demographic and economic terms. is but a fraction of what it was at the
beginning of the century. If we are assisting to the "Mexicanization or
the Latinamericanization of the United States. it is only in the same
sense, and to a much lesser extent, than it was "Italianized" and "South-
europeanizedra few decades earlier. Rhetorical statements of this kind
draw attention to the fact that immigrant flows have a significant economic
and cultural impact in the areas where they settle. They conceal, however,
the equally important fact that each foreign minority, no matter how large.
has been absorbed in the United States without altering the fundamental
economic and political structures of the Country. This absorption.or what
I would prefer to call incorporation of immigrants has not occurred, how-
ever, in a uniform manner. Different modes of incorporation of recent
immigrant groups is the second topic which I would like to discuss today.
II. Modes of Incorporation
The sociological analysis of immigration has traditionally focused on
the coping mechanisms utilized by immigrants and their processes of assimi-
lation to a new setting. Concepts such as accommodation. acculturation, and
adaptation -- prominent in the sociological literature -- were coined in the
context of immigrant studies and ioterethnic relations.
The assimilation perspective portrays a basically homogenous sequence
of adaptation which would roughly move along the following steps:
1. Newly-arrived immigrant groups concentrate in their own
ethnic ghettos. Lack of skills and lack of familiarity with the language
66
and culture forces them into the worst jobs. The ireas uf the city which
they occupy are crowded and impoverished. Their "foreigness" and poverty
repels the native population. Immigrants suffer from much prejudice and
discrimination.
2. The first generation gradually acculturates and experiences
some economic progress. The second-generation becomes increasingly ident-
ified with their new country, breaking with their parents' loyalty to the
old one. Immigrant children become rapidly acculturated through the school
system. Their higher educational achievement and knowledge of the country
leads to better economic opportunities. Acculturation and economic progress
reduce, in turn, social distance with the majority, though the children of
immigrants remain, by and large, a stigmatized group.
3, By the third or fourth generations, economic progress and accultura-
tion break the final social barriers. The group "melts" either into the
society at large or into one of its major subgroups defined by religion.
Catholic. Protestant, and Jew. The process of assimilation is now complete,
The application of this basic assimilation sequence to recent immigrants
to the United States and, in particular, to recent Latin American immigra-
tion runs into severe difficulties. These are two basic shortcomings in
this perspective: First, it assumes that the socio-economic context into
which immigrants are incorporated is homogenous. Second. it assumes that
the rapidity of assimilation depends primarily on individual characteristics
such as education, knowledge of English, and the "right" values. More edu-
cated, knowledgeable, and modern immigrants will presumably be those more
rapidly absorbed into the mainstream.
67
It is possible to show that recent immigrant groups have gone through
at least three distinct "modes" of incorporation to American society and
that each deviates in significant ways from the assimilation model. These
modes can be labelled "primary," 'secondary," and "enclave." I will attempt
to discuss each briefly.
III. Primary Sector Immigration
A numerically significant part of current immigration to the United
States is directed to what has been labelled the primary labor market. It
corresponds roughly to employment in government, large scale institutions
-- such as hospitals, universities, and research centers -- and large
corporations. Firms in this sector tend to comply with minimum wage. work
environment, and other labor laws. Discipline is not enforced arbitrarily
by a foreman or boss, but depends on a series of explicitly laid out and
bureaucratically enforced norms. Workers generally have opportunities for
advancement on the basis of seniority and skills along a pre-established
ladder.
The "good jobs" in the primary sector are usually taken by native white
workers, but sometimes shortages develop in the national, regional, or local
markets. Professions in which national manpower shortages have been met by
immigration in recent years include physicians, nurses, dietitians, engineers.
and scientists. Immigration directed to the primary sector has the following
characteristics:
1) It comes legally and is protected by labor laws just as
native workers are,
72
68
2) Immigrants are hired according to individual skills and not
according to their ethnicity,
3) They have advancement opportunities comparable to native
workers, though they often start at the bottom of their
respective ladders,
4) Immigrants from a particular country do not concentrate in a
given city or neighborhood. They are found dispersed through-
out the country according to the location of firms which
employ them,
5) Substantial economic progress and extensive participation in
American social networks often occurs in the first generation,
even in the absence of full acculturation or perfect knowledge
of English.
Primary sector immigration corresponds to what is often called, from
the standpoint of sending countries, the brain drain. The flow of pro-
fessional. managerial, technical, and skilled craft personnel from periphery
to center tends to fit the juridical categories of immigration law and is
thus easily recorded and reported by government agencies. The flow is
encouraged by explicit legal provisions. Thus, for example, the third and
sixth preference categories of the amended 1965 U.S. Immigration Act are
reserved for professional, technical, and skilled workers in short supply in
the country.
In 1978, 69.806 foreign professionals, managers, and technicians were
legally admitted to the United States as permanent residents. Latin America
contributed 8,052 or 12 percent of the total. An additional 27,788 skilled
73
69
artisans and craftsmen were admitted in the same year. The Latin American
share was 47 percent of the total.
The contributions that thousands of foreign professionals and artisans
make to American society does not figure prominently in recent policy dis-
cussions about immigration nor in scholarly analysis of the subject. A
reason for this is the "invisibility" typical of this mode of incorporation.
Countries which have made the most substantial contribution of professionals
to the United States in recent years (and whicn have thus suffered from the
greatest brain drain) are Taiwan. India, and the Philippines. No one speaks
of a "Chinese." "Indian` or "Filipino" immigration problem. They are seldom
mentioned in policy debates. Tne reason is that these Asian professionals
are dispersed througnout the country, employed by a number of firms tnd
institutions, and pursuing a style of adaptation quite different from the
conventional assimilation sequence.
Foreign physicians are among the most numerous professional workers in
the United States. A recent large study of foreign doctors in U.S. hospitals
found no evidence of discrimination against them in pay or working conditions
relative to L.S. medical grad...a:es in similar positions. The study found,
however, that foreign doctors were disproportionately concentrated in the
less prestigious hosOtals, o-edominantly those without university affilia-
tion. These results it well the labor-supplement function, wnere incAgrants
are hired to resol/e a manpower shortage by taking tne less desirable positions
in a oartic6lar profession o- craft.
74
70
IV. Secondary Sector Immigration
The secondary labor market corresponds to employment in small and
medium-size competitive firms which lack internal promotion ladders and
for which cheap labor is a decisive element of survival. Discipline in
these firms is imposed directly and it is often harsh. The pressures of
competition lead to an unmitigated downward pressure on wages and a con-
tinuous search for cheaper and more docile sources of labor. Native workers
frequently refuse to take these jobs; when they do, they change from one
to another since the absence of promotion ladders offers no incentive to
stay with a particular employer.
The "bad jobs" of the secondary sector are those in which American-
born minorities, such as blacks and Chicanos, tend to concentrate. A
large proportion of contemporary immigration is also directed to this
sector. In contrast with primary immigration. that going into the secondary
labor market has the following characteristics:
1) Its juridical status is often tenuous, ranging from illegal
to temporary.
2) Workers are not primarily hired according to their skills, but
according to their ethnicity. Their primary advantage to em-
ployers is the vulnerability attached to their juridical position.
3) Immigrants tend to be hired for transient and short-term jobs
which are not part of a promotion ladder. Opportunities for
upward mobility are severely restricted.
4) The function of secondary sector immigration is not limited to
supplementing the domestic labor force but involves disciplining
75
71
it. Immigrant workers are hired even when a domestic labor
supply exists and against the employment conditions demanded
by the latter. The consfstent effect of secondary labor immi-
gration is thus to lower the prevailing wage.
5) Secondary sector immigration tends to cluster in limited resi-
dential areas, ghettos or barrios, characterized by poor housing
and overcrowding.
Secondary sector immigration differs from the normative assimilation
sequence because of the illegal status of most immigrants in it. This has
two consequences: First, as noted above, many return to their native
country. Second, those who stay find their opportunities for acculturation
and upward economic mobility restricted by their illegal status. Their
children face much greater difficulties in moving along the patterned steps
of the assimilation ladder and thus tend to remain confined to the same
jobs and residential areas as their parents.
Current Mexican immigration offers one of the most typical examples of
secondary labor flows. The bulk of this immigration is undocumented al-
thougn a substantial proportion has also managed to legalize their situation.
The majority of Mexican immigrants are small farmers, urban unskilled and
semi-skilled workers, plus some artisans and white-collar employees.
A longitudinal study of Mexican immigration which I conducted inter-
viewed 822 legal male immigrants along the Texas border during 1972-73.
Interviews took place at the point of legal entry in the United States. The
same immigrants were re-interviewed three and six years later. A total of
439 cases were found and re-interviewed in 1976 and 455 in 1979. A series
7 61 )
72
of statistical checks on the original sample indicated that it was repre-
sentative of the population of male Mexican immigrants arriving during
fiscal 1973. Analyses of the two follow-up sub-samples indicated that
they were unbiased with respect to the original one.
Approximately 70 percent of the original sample was estimated to have
resided for extensive periods in the United States prior to legal entry.
These immigrants were able to obtain residents' visas largely through
marriage to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The remainder of the
sample also came, almost exclusively, as immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens and permanent residents. Results from this sample illustrate
some of the characteristics of secondary sector immigration.
At the moment of arrival in the U.S. most immigrants already had a
job. These jobs paid a median of $408 per month or less than half the
median earnings of the U.S. adult male labor force in 1973. In subsequent
years, there was a gradual narrowing of the gap, though, in 1979, it was
still significant. Mexican immigrant monthly earnings stood then at $818
while the corresponding national figure was $1205. Adjusting for inflation,
the economic gain made by this sample was still less impressive: Between
1973 and 1979, the real increase in earnings was only $100 or less than
one-fourth the original monthly earnings.
More important, however, is the correlation of earnings with variables
which should, in theory, increase them. These variables include education
at arrival, knowledge of English, and past occupational training. The
secondary labor market is characterized by employment in dead-end jobs for
which many school-acquired skills are irrelevant. The interest of employers
73
on immigrant labor is based on its legal vulnerability and, hence, cheap-
ness, rather than on any qualifications that these workers bring. For this
reason, neither education nor knowledge of English or occupational training
significantly increase immigrant earnings.
In 1976, for example, Mexican immigrants who had only completed ele-
mentary school had monthly earnings of $677, while those who had completed
high school or some college earned only $668. Immigrants who barely spoke
English earned as much as those who spoke it fairly well. Those who in
Mexico were skilled workers earned a median of 5668 per month, but those
who were white collar workers earned only $544.
Secondary sector immigration tends to homogenize downwards, forcing
the bulk of immigrants into semi-skilled and unskilled jobs, regardless of
their original qualifications. This effect persists even after they have
managed to legalize their situation. At the moment of arrival in 1973, 51
percent of Mexican immigrants reported unskilled and semi-skilled occupa-
tions. In 1976, 73 percent were concentrated in this category and. in 1979,
68 percent were still there At the other extreme, 37 percent of the sample
reported skilled or white collar occupztions at arrival, but those achieving
this status represented only 21 percent in 1976 and 25 in 1979.
A final illustration of differences between modes of incorporation is
provided by the minority of our Mexican sample which managed to gain entry
into primary sector firms. For this group, education, knowledge of English
and occupational training did yield the expected payoff in terms of U.S.
income. In 1976, for example. the 75 Mexican immigrants which had gained
entry into the primary sector earned a median of $804 per month,, in comparison
78
74
with 5587 for the rest of the sample. The correlation of education and
earnings for those in the primary sector was .36, indicating that their
earnings did increase with educational training. For the rest of the
sample the correlation was zero.
These results indicate that the fate of immigrants and their economic
function depend as much on this mode of incorporation into places of desti-
nation as on individual skills and training.
V. Immigrant Enclaves
Enclaves consist of immigrant groups which concentrate in a certain
location and organize a variety of enterprises serving their own ethnic
market and/or the general population. Their basic characteristic is that
a significant proportion of the immigrant labor force works in enterprises
owned by other immigrants. Some enclaves are sufficiently large and
diversified to permit the organization of life entirely within their
limits. Work and leisure activities can take place without requiring
knowledge of the host country's language or extensive contact with the
broader population. Despite this isolation, many immigrants are economic-
ally successful.
The case of the Japanese is well-known. Similar experiences have been
reported for the Chinese. For Koreans on the U.S. West Coast, Bonacich
notes the proliferation of immigrant business and the mobility opportunities
that they make available. Similarly, Cuban owned enterprises in the Miami
area have been estimated to increase from 919 in 1967 to about 8,000 ten years
79
75
later. While most are small scale, some employ hundreds of workers.
Asa mode of incorporation into the receiving economy, immigrant enclaves
also possess several distinct characteristics:
1) Their formation is not a product of deliberate economic policies
by the government or the labor needs of employers, but depends on
the initiative and resources of the immigrants themselves.
2) Enclaves are occupationally heterogenous. Even if immigrants
shared the same occupational backgrounds, development of immi-
grant enterprises tends to promote diversification.
3) Ethnicity represents an important aspect of economic exchange
within enclaves. Common ethnicity does not symbolize, however,
a vulnerable market position as in the secondary market.
A) Significant opportunities for economic advancement exist in the
first generation. Expansion of immigrant enterprises means the
opening up of new positions and opportunities. The counterpart
of ethnic bonds of solidarity, manipulated by successful entre-
preneurs, is the principle of ethnic preference in hiring and of
support of other immigrants in their economic ventures. Reciprocal
obligatiois thus create new opportunities for immigrants and
permit their utilization of past investments in education and
job training.
5) Enclaves are characterized by high geographic concentration and,
hence, visibility. Unlike secondary sector neighborhoods, however,
enclaves are not only residential places, but also economic entities.
80
76
A substantitl proportion of immigrants work within them.
Geographic concentration facilitates access to labor, credit,
and provides a ready market for goods and services produced
by immigrant firms.
A necessary condition for the emergence of enclaves is the presence of
immigrants with sufficient capital and entrepreneurial experience. Capital
might be brought from the home country - as is often the case with political
exiles -- or accumulated through savings. Individuals with the requisite
entrepreneurial skills might be drawn into the immigrant flow to escape
political persecution or to profit from opportunities opened up by a pre-
existing immigrant colony abroad.
Results from a longitudinal study of Cuban refugees which was conducted
parallel to the Mexican study discussed previously, illustrate this third
mode of incorporation. The sample consisted of 590 Cuban exiles interviewed
at the moment of arrival in Miami during 1972-73 and reinterviewed three and
six years later. The follow-up surveys in 1976 and 1979 located and re-
interviewed 75 and 70 percent of the original sample, respectively.
As in the Mexican case, statistical tests show the 1976 and 1979 subsamples
to be unbiased with respect to the original one. Unlike Mexican immigrants
who dispersed throughout the Midwest and Southwest, Cuban refugees were
concentrated in a single place. In 1973, 98 percent indicated that they
intended to stay in Miami; six years later 98 percent were still there.
More important, however, is the fact that, in this sample, education,
knowledge of English, and occupational training brought from Cuba did yield
a significant economic payoff. The higher the training and knowledge brought
81
77
from Cuba. the higher the U.S. earnings. In 1973. 12 percent of the refugers
reported professional or managerial occupations; by 1979, the figure had
increased to 14.3 percent indicating increasing occupational differentiation.
Statistics on self-employment and employment in immigrant-owned firma
in this sample are most revealing. Self-employment increased from zero at
arrival to 21 percent in 1979. In comparison. only one Mexican immigrant
had acquired his own business after six years in the country. Cuban exile
enterprises concentrated in retail commerce (28%). services (26%). construc-
tion (17%). and the professions (12%). As might be expected. independent
entrepreneurship had a positive effect on earnings. In 1979. monthly earn-
ings among the self-employed exceeded by 6200 on the average those of salaried
workers.
A substantial number of other respondents in the sample found employment
in Cubanowned firms. If these are added to the self-employed. about 33 per-
cent of these immigrants were part of the Cuban economic enclave in 1976.
By 1979, the figure had increased to almost half of the sample. 49 percent.
Contrary to generalized expectations. the condition of immigrants working in
the enclave firms is not inferior to that of those employed in the outside.
In 1979, average monthly earnings of Cuban refugees in the enclave was
61103 as compared with $1029 for those working elsewhere.
Not all respondents in our sample were employed in enclave firms. how-
ever, A substantial number found jobs in enterprises which are typical
c' the secondary sector. A comparison between these two groups offers a final
illustration of the effect of different modes of incorporation. Education at
arrival had a very s.rong positive effect on the occupational status of Cuban
82(31-414 0-1111-6
78
refugees both in 1976 and in 1979. This effect held even after controlling
for a number of other relevant variables. However, education had no effect
on occupation among those relegated to the secondary labor market either in
1976 or in 1979.
Present occupation and information had very strong effects on earnings
among Cubans in the enclave; in the secondary sector, neither these
variables nor any other increased earnings. In 1979, occupation signifi-
cantly affected earnings in both sectors. However, aspirations at arrival
had a significant effect on earnings among those in the enclave, but not
in the secondary sector. The main conclusion which these results illustrate
is that individual characteristics brought by immigrants to the United States
do not suffice to explain their process of economic and social adaptation.
Mexicans and Cubans, despite similar cultural origins and even similar
occupational and educational backgrounds, follow different adaptation paths
and find themselves, at the end of several years, in different economic and
social situations. Within each group, the economic fate of individual
immigrants depends, to a large extent, on the segment of the labor market
into which they become incorporated. Immigrants of identical educational
and occupational backgrounds, do very differently in the United States,
depending on whether tneir labor is channelled toward the primary or the
secondary sector, or whether they join a pre-existing enclave economy.
!V, COnCluSicn
In syntnesis, I have presented anc briefly documented two points among
the many significant ones boich coL.Id be made about the "new" or post World
83
79
War !I immigration to the United States. First, the present immigration
wave, from Latin America and elsewhere,, must be seen in the historical
context provided by earlier periods of mass immigration. From this
vantage point, the numerical significance of the present inflow acquires
a new meaning and notions like the "Latinamericanization of the United
States" appear highly exaggerated. The rise of nativist movements at present
repeats a phenomenon observed many times in the past and it is likely to
produce the same dismal consequences.
Second, the fate of immigrants and their process of adaptation to
American society are neither homogenous nor do they depend exclusively on
individual traits brought from the home country. Three major modes of
incorporation exist at present, based on access to different segments of
the American labor market. None of them corresponds to the ideal typical
sequence outlined by the conventional assimilation perspective. Secondary
sector immigration comes closest to the first steps of the theoretical
assimilation sequence, but the illegal status of most immigrants in this
situation restricts their possibilities for gradual and successful adaptation.
Immigrants incorporated into the primary labor market or into a pre-
existing economic enclave are likely to face less social and economic barriers
during the first generation; successive ones are likely to adapt successfully,
albeit in different forms. The most serious problem associated with contemp-
orary immigration is that of undocumented immigrants coming to meet the demand
for cheap labor in the secondary se,tor of the economy. It is a problem which
involves the immigrants themselves, their children, and the native workers
with which they compete in this segment of the economy. The present policy
84
80
of legally proscribing but de facto accepting large-nimbers of manual immigrant
workers Is likely to have severe long-tern consequences. in terms of the
welfare of American workers. the chances for successful adaptation of these
immigrants and their children. and the social and political stability of the
regions where they settle.
The United States must face this challenge by rejecting a policy based
on the narrow economic interests of a particular class and by bringing the
letter of the law into line with its application. If there is a real demand
for :ore manual labor. it should be met with a legal immigration program so
that the need of immigrants for work is not used as a weapon against the
most needy and most defenseless American workers. Illegals and
their families which have settled permanently in the country must be brought
out of their pariah status and into the mainstream so that they and their
children have at least the same opportunities for adaptation as those given
to earlier European immigrants. The injustice perpetrated on native
workers and on the immigrantsthemselves. allowed into the country and then
con'ined to a penunently disadvantaged position. can lead to severe social
and polit'cal unrest. Americans must decide ..nether the continuing profit-
ability of certain secto-s of the economy is worth the price of breaching
the rule of law and abandoning the goals of a r.inimo living wage and protec-
tion of individual rignts for eve-yone in tne country.
85
81
Mrs. HALL. Thank you. Our last witness for this panel is Dr. LeoEstrada, of the UCLA Graduate School of Architecture and UrbanPlanning.
Mr. GARCIA. Before Dr. Estrada starts, I would just like to say wehave worked very closely together over the years. In Puerto Rico,New York, California, or here in Washington, I am always bump-ing into him. We had a hell of an experience in 1979, 1980, and1981 with the Bureau of Census. I just wanted to convey to himhow absolutely delighted I am to see him here.
STATEMENT OF LEO ESTRADA, UCLA GRADUATE SCHOOL OFARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING
Dr. ESTRADA. Thank you. In the interest of time, I would like tolimit my remarks to a few observations. The first one is to compli-ment the Census Bureau on its presentation, and to note in the nottoo distant past that presentations such as this would have beenalmost impossible for the lack of information available. The CensusBureau has come a long way in this particular forefront on pre-senting data on Hispanic Americans in the United States, and com-pliments are given to the Office of Racial and Ethnic Statisticshoping to encourage them in their efforts to improve the quantityand quality of such data.
Very briefly, I would like to simply say that the improvementsthat we can see in the statistics that were presented today weregiven in terms of national statistics. Many of the improvements, orlack of improvements, are more apparent when one looks at thisinformation by regions. The fact that we are a diverse populationrequires that we maintain a sense of the regional distribution, andthat our brothers in the New York area and New Jersey differ con-siderably from our brothers in Arizona, or Southern California, be-cause circumstances in each case is quite different. When we lookat the statistics, one of the things which we observe is that we havesome things in common with other minority groups. Certainly theincrease in the number of female-headed families leads us to thesame sort of issues, which some people relate to as the feminizationof poverty. These are issues which are very general and which arevery important, and which mean that in some ways Hispanics andissues related to Hispanics persist for us as they do for othergroups.
There are other factors which are quite unique. Spanish lan-guage usage is one such factor, persistent lack of progress and im-provement in the educational area is another, which require atten-tion which appears to be something more than just a matter oftime. Time doesn't seem to be taking care of the circumstances,and more needs to be done.
In many ways I am disappointed with the lack of improvement,because when one looks at the general economic context of the lastdecade, one can see that the Southwest, and Florida, where a greatmajority of Hispanics presently reside, are areas which have expe-rienced booming economies, dynamic growth, industrial increasesin manufacturing and high tech in other areas of ii.dustry and theeconomy. One would expect that the people who live in those areaswould benefit somewhat from these developments. In fact, when we
8,6
82
look at the unemployment rates, the decrease in income, when welook at the lower levels of occupation, we begin to see that some ofthese expected changes have not indeed occurred.
I would like to point out that the work that Dr. Waggoner,Portes, and Borjas are very significant and they are looking withinthe population, at the diversity that is indeed apparent in terms ofimmigrant status and other issues, and looking at the fact that theimprovements for Hispanics are not on par with the majoritygroups, a fact that needs to be reiterated.
To finish very briefly if I may, I would like to point out that weare now at the point where we can determine the economic statusof Hispanics in the United States. The problem now becomes one ofmonitoring to see whether or not we can improve the educationalstatus, whether we can begin to deal with the issues of poverty,whether the immigrant factor it affects is related to our statusgains and losses can be controlled and analyzed properly.
There are persistent issues which do not seem to go away. Thevalues of a hearing such as this is to understand where we are,where we need to be, and to provide some guidance for alleviatingsome of these problems. Thank you very much.
Mrs. HALL. Again, we would like to thank each of our witnessesfor such excellent presentations. You have all been very great.
At this time we are going to ask questions. I would like to startwith Dr. Kincannon. Last week in the New York Times there wasan article from the Census Bureau of the United States whichstated in the 1980 census the Mexican-American population isprobably overcounted by at least 270,000 people. Could you explainwhy do you feel there was an overcount?
Mr. KINCANNON. There was an overcount mainly in the EasternStates, and Southern States, excluding Texas; it was fairly small inscale, a little over 2 percent of the total Mexican-Americans in theUnited States and much smaller percentage of all Hispanics. Themisreporting in the Spanish item apparently occurred in areaswhere there are few if any Hispanics and over the terms used inthe census question. Apparently the phrase Mexican-American wasconfused with simply American.
Mrs. HALL. The next question is for Dr. Waggoner. I really didenjoy your presentation. I got a lot of meaning out of it. Before Icame to Congress, I was a social studies teacher and I taught atEdison School. We had a student population of Mexican-Americans,and Puerto Rican-Americans, and Cuban-Americans. We had a bi-lingual education program as well as an education program withEnglish as a second language, or some other strong English lan-guage teaching element.
Dr. WAGGONER. The bilingual part adds instruction in the lan-guage of the child in order that he can continue to develop hisskills in the other educational areas at the same time he is learn-ing English. We have a lot of evidence that these programs are ef-fective. There has been some controversy, and I believe the after-noon session will address this, with participation of some of ourState directors who are very much involved in the education of lim-ited-English-proficient children.
Mrs. HALL. You also mentioned some language proficiency tests.Did you bring any tests with you today?
87
83
Dr. WAGGONER. No; but we could provide more information aboutthe test that was used in the study. I should say the languagemeasurement and assessment inventory is the name of the testthat was used with the children in the children's study in 1978,and in the English proficiency study. This is not a test that diag-noses the nee,...; of individual children. It is designed simply for thepurpose of estimating gross numbers. That is you could give it to asample of children with certain characteristics in a school district,and then you could estimate from the results, that you have ap-proximately so many limited-English-proficient children for whomyou need to plan a prop-am, but it wouldn't identify the specificchildren necessarily. It s not that kind of a test. There are anumber of tests that are used. Again, I think our State peoplecould address that much better than I.
Mrs. HALL. Very good. Before you leave today, I'd like to have afew minutes to talk to you about the tests.
Of course, I have a question for Dr. Borjas. You mentioned thatthe Hispanic-American earns an average of 25 percent less in thiscountry. Of course, you pointed out that it takes a period of yearsfor each group to be able to earn in certain categories. Do you haveany other evidence to show that discrimination could be a reasonwhy?
Dr. BOKJAS. The evidence that Hispanics are discriminatedagainst is, in my opinion, much weaker than the evidence thatblacks are discriminated against, simply because the 25-percentwage differential between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, a largefraction of that can be explained by the fact that Hispanics havean average of 3 years less education than non-Hispanic whites. TheHispanics, with limited skills, a lot of the differential between thetwo groups is accounted for.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you. At this time I would like to yield to mycolleague from New York City, Congressman Garcia.
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you very much. Dr. Portes, I would like tostart off with you if I may. You gave a very interesting statisticthat the immigration today as compared to the turn of the centuryis a fraction of what it was then. I would really appreciate it if youwould be kind enough to elaborate.
Dr. PORTES. The main problem, Congressman Garcia, is that ofcourse we do not have firm figures. The point of my testimony isthat that component would have to be so large in order to equatethe proportion of the U.S. population and of the U.S. labor forcerepresented by immigration in the 1920's, that it is by all rightsimpossible. Clearly the United States is today heavily impacted.This is a period of high immigration, but my major concerns aregeneral in the mass media that the present process is somethingunique as a mass invasion from the Third World, and in particular,from the Latin-American. These historical comparisons are usefulin pointing out that indeed we have high immigration. Indeed theHispanic population is growing very fast, but it is still in no way assignificant a proportion of the Nation as immigrants were in theperiod of high immigration before World War I.
Mr. GARCIA. I would appreciate, Dr. Portes, if you would be kindenough to put some charts together on that. That's quite inform-ative because as a Hispanic myself, and as the former chairman of
80
84
this subcommittee, I will be frank to tell you Hispanics are con-stantly being critized for what's happening today, when in reality Ithink your testimony, which is backed up by figures and statistics,is that, in reality, it really is a fraction of what's taking place orwhat has taken place in this country. So, whatever you can do tofurther that thought with this committee, I would appreciate itvery much.
Dr. PORTES. I would be happy to do so, and let me add briefly,again to reemphasize there is evidence from a series of studies con-ducted by anthropologists and sociologists of a large amount of cir-cular migration across the United States-Mexico border, whichmight account in part or jives in with the testimony, the part pre-sented by Mr. Kincannon today, about the relatively low propor-tion that the foreign born represent in the Hispanic populations ofthe States of the Southwest. That is indeed there is a lot of Mexi-can labor coming in, but there is a number of empirical data thatpoint to the fact that this is a circular flow by and large.
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you very much.Mr. Kincannon, I will tell you that first I really would like to
congratulate you and your staff. Tell me a little more about the datasource regarding your statement about the Southwest Hispanicpopulation.
Mr. KINCANNON. In 1980, those data were based solely on theself-perceived response to an ethnic question of the person fill-ing out the questionnaire the response identified the Hispanicgroup or any other ethnic group.
We did, in 1970, use Spanish surnames as one of the means ofidentifying Hispanics, but only in the five Southwestern States. In1980, the primary approach was entirely based on self-identifica-tion.
Mr. GARCIA. Again, you are to be commended. I know you sitthere at the head, but it is the people around you that make thedifference whether you are successful or whether you fail.
Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, sir, that's exactly true, and I appreciateyour compliments for the staff and your help during the 1970'sthat have made this possible.
Mr. GARCIA. Dr. Estrada, you always have a way of cutting thelegs out from under us Your statement in the Sunday Times,which I don't know if you have had a chance to see, stated that theclaim is dismissed by such friends of the Hispanic movement as Dr.Leobardo Estrada, a demographer at the University of California atLos Angeles who once served as special advisor to the census direc-tor, talking about our political potential. Then you went on to say,"It sounds good, but it won't happen. There's a lot of exaggerationof rates of growth. The leaders are deceiving themselves in think-ing it is really important."
I really would appreciate it if you would be kind enough to elabo-rate on that statement.
Dr. ESTRADA. I hadn't seen the article, but I did talk to Mr. Rein-hold on the phone. We were discussing the growth of the Hispanicpopulation, and the significance in terms of the next election, not
89
85
the near future, or the far future, but the next election, 1984. Thequestion presented was the Hispanic population grew by 90-somepercent in the Southwest, 60 percent overall in the Nation, there-fore can we expect the voter registration will increase by at leastthat amount, and thus exert that influence over the voting results.
My response was that no it would not be, and that we couldn'texpect it to be because a great deal of the growth that we observedcame from fertility which means that children will not be eligibleto vote for at least 18 years. Another part of it comes from immi-gration. While these are mostly in young adults who are eligible byage to vote, they would not be eligible through citizenship as legalresidents. Therefore, the growth that we are expecting in voting isnot going to be quite as dramatic as some people would hope itwould be. The near future, however, is quite a different story, as Ipointed out to Mr. Reinhold.
Mr. GARCIA. That was not in the quote.Dr. EsricAnn. Well, you know how quotes go. I do think though
the next election, it is important to keep in mind, as I point out topeople, that we only comprise 6 percent of the national population.If you turn it around, you are talking about 94 percent of the popu-lation being non-Hispanic, that's much more impressive. What'smore important is where we are concentrated. We are concentratedin States which are, as they say, a "toss-up" in terms of the elec-tions. Therefore, the aggregate vote that Hispanics will contributeto the State as a whole will make a difference. It will make less ofa difference in some of the local elections because of the lack of eli-gible votes at this point and time.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between whatwe can expect in the next election 1984, and what we can expect inthe near future. Even the most conservative estimates N,e havewould indicate that there will be approximately 200,000 young His-panics turning to the age of 18 every year for the next 20 years.That's very impressive. If we can register to vote even a significantfraction of that group, we will improve our potential in voting dra-matically over time; but in the short r"n most of our growth is de-pendent upon other factors such as increased registration.
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you very much for being with us today.Dr. Borjas, I think you may have put your foot into something
here, and I would like to get your comments on it. We are going togive you an opportunity to dig your way out of it.
That is as it deals with women. You said that the influx of whitewomen into the labor market may have diminished Hispanic earn-ings.
Dr. BORJAS. Black earnings.Mr. GARCIA. May have diminished Hispanic earnings. Am I cor-
rect? I think what we are trying to do here is be open and honestwith each other, and I would not like a statement like that. It is avery powerful statement. You come to us as a person who has donethis research, and as a person who in reality is an authority. Iwould really truly appreciate it if you would be kind enough toelaborate as it relates to white women and relates to minoritymales.
Dr. BORJAS. My research in using the 1970 census was that inthose labor markets where women entered in large numbers, male
90
86
earnings usually dropped and so did male employment. Youngblack male earnings and young black male employment was theone most affected by it. So that s what I meant to say in my state-ment. As a result of the entrance of women, it was not really His-panics that contributed to the worsening conditions of black youth,but it was instead the large number of women entering the labormarket in the last 20 or 30 years.
Mr. GARCIA. Can you give me some idea of what labor marketsand specific geographic areas of the country we are dealing with?
Dr. BORJAS. I don't have the data in front of me, but usuallyNortheastern cities where women are in very large numbers.That's where you observe that black, particularly black youth em-ployment conditions, worsened tremendously.
Mr. GARCIA. Any specific documentations?Dr. BORJAS. It was just on the average. I have to admit that I was
really looking, when I did my research, that it was Hispanic immi-gration that affected on blacks in a negative way, but I've done itwith two data sets and it's just not in the data. What I did come upwith was the women results. It's a very strong result, and other in-dividuals have conducted some research on how the entering ofwomen has affected labor markets, and there seems to be a grow-ing consensus that indeed something negative has happened as aresult of that.
Mr. GARCIA. I would appreciate it very much if there is any addi-tional information you could give us on that particular subject.
Dr. BORJAS. I'll be happy to.Mr. GARCIA. I have no further questions.Mrs. HALL. I have a question for Dr. Estrada. When you were the
assistant to the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau you testifiedbefore this committee. At that time you discussed the importanceof the contradictory nature of the census form.
In your opinion, how do the American people perceive the confi-dentiality of the census form?
Dr. ESTRADA. The perception of the public is actually fairly good.I use several indicators, the fact that people did respond to thecensus form without questioning, without being reluctant I guess isa way to put the answer. I think it's important to realize it cost usmost of our time and energy to get that other 15 percent, and Ithink a large proportion of those nonresponses had to do with acertain amount of fear. We were convinced that if we could informpeople, if we could give them enough information, that we wouldbe able to convince them of the confidentiality of the census, and Ithink that's why such an effort was put into promotionin tryingto get across the message about the census.
In all honesty, I think the attitude the people have about theagency has changed over a period of time, and one of those atti-tudes which affects our results and affects us as a whole is the factpeople aren't really sure, or not as certain as they used to be, so allwe can really do is continue to uphold the law that we have andcontinue to provide information to those who have questions aboutit. I don't have any doubt in my mind that we are working with acurrent which is working against us.
Mrs. HALL. I would like to yield to Mr. Garcia.
91.
87
Mr. GARCIA. One of the problems we had during the 1980 censuswas the question of confidentiality. Time goes by quickly, and nextyear you are going to have to start preparing for the precensusseries and surveys in 1985. I want to make it very clear, for therecord, that I'd like to get some specific answers from either you,or you, Dr. Kincannon. I believe you had a chart dealing with thebirths of children who were born of undocumented persons. Ormaybe that was one of the slides that you had.
Mr. KINCANNON. Total undocumented persons included in thecensus.
Mr. GARCIA. I want to be very clear that nobody misinterpretswhen you talk about confidentiality on the statistics, and whetherthe census in any way violated that trust.
Mr. KINCANNON. That's a very, very important point, and Ithank you for bringing that out. That confidentiality is very strict-ly construed in the law and in practice in the Census Bureau. Nopersonal information reported in the census under the authority oftitle 13 of the Census Code are shared with any other agency of theFederal Government.
Mr. GARCIA. Let me interrupt you. Where do we get the informa-tion documented?
Mr. KINCANNON. That's our estimate of undocumented alienscounted in the census.
Mr. GARCIA. So the key word is estimate?Mr. KINCANNON. Yes.Mr. GARCIA. I don't want anybody to misunderstand. This is the
view of the census in the best way they could determine that theseare estimates and not facts.
Mr. KINCANNON. That's correct. We think it is a valid estimate,but it is only an estimate of the undocumented aliens counted inthe census, and it was derived not by direct question or dealingwith individual records because we are not able to identify specificindividuals as being legally or illegally in the country. Rather, theestimate deals with statistical aggregates only, in particular thenumber of noncitizens who reported in the census. Subtracted fromthat is total figures on legal aliens derived from alien registrationdata compiled by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It issimply the residual of that mathematical calculation.
Mr. GARCIA. You were a little more specific dealing with thoseMexican backgrounds than any other group. Why?
Mr. KINCANNON. I think it was the largest single component ofthe group is why I mentioned it.
Mr. GARCIA. Just so the record is clear, Madam Chair, I wouldhate now in 1983 to have anybody think for one moment that thetrust was violated.
Mrs. HALL. Again, we wish to thank each of our witnesses forcoming today, and for sharing so much knowledge with us. We arevery grateful for your presence and your participation. At thistime, the Chair is going to call a 5-minute recess and we are goingto dismiss our panel of witnesses and prepare to call the nextpanel.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., a recess was taken.]
924.1
88
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mrs. HALL. At this time we will resume our hearing, and wewould like to welcome our panel of witnesses at this time. We haveDr. Gloria Zamora, president of the National Association of Bilin-gual Education; Dr. Carmen Perez of the bureau of bilingual educa-tion in New York State University; Dr. Guillermo Lopez, directorof California State Department of Education; Dr. Keith Baker,editor, "Bilingual Education: A Reappraisal of Federal Policy"book; Dr. Adriana De Kaater, also an editor of the "Bilingual Edu-cation: A Reappraisal of Federal Policy" book; and my former bossand also a former State legislator in Indiana as well as theformer Lake County, Ind. auditor, and Lake County, Ind. sher-iff, and at the present time the assistant superintendent of the Chi-cago/Indiana Public School System, and a great educator, Dr. JoseArredondo. Of course we have Dr. Amalio Madrieno, and I apolo-gize if I do not pronounce the last name properlyrepresentingMALDEF.
I have been joined by two other Members of the U.S. Congress,Congressman Martinez of California, and Congressman Corrada ofPuerto Rico.
At this time I would like to extend the opportunity to the newlyarrived Congressmen to speak, and then we will hear from ourpanel of witnesses. Let's hear from Congressman Martinez.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MATTHEW MARTINEZ
Mr. MARTINEZ. First of all, thank you for your attendance heretoday. We know you are all interested in the subject matter. I amhere to listen and learn. I have my own concepts on the importanceof bilingual education for the people I represent. This will reaffirmsome of those things I believe in, and probably discount some con-cepts. I hope you affirm more than disaffirm the things I believe.Thank you.
Mrs. HALL. Next we will hear from Congressman Corrada ofPuerto Rico.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BALTASAR CORRADA
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you. I would like to thank ChairwomanHall for her cooperation in holding this series of hearings entitled"The Hispanic Population: Demographic and Issue Profile," and forallowing the close examination of a wide series of issues affectingthe Hispanic community. I certainly welcome all of you, the wit-nesses, for appearing before this subcommittee today.
As a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, Ihave long been involved in the fight to bring equity to Hispanics inemployment, education, and social welfare programs. Hispanic un-employment looms as perhaps one of the most serious challengesfor our people, as shown by the August 1983 level of 12.9 percent,or 790,000 unemployed persons out of work force of 6,134,000. Theroots of this disproportionate employment figures are not clear cut.A recent study by the National Committee for Employment Policystated that a lack of fluency in English is a major source of thelabor market difficulties faced by Hispanics. For this reason, bilin-gual education takes on a central importance for the economic
93
89
future of our people. Bilingual education sets out participation infunded programs with those of limited proficiency in English lan-guage skills needed for success in schools. The target group undertitle VII consists of approximately 3.6 million school aged childrenwhose home language and background are other than English, andwho are limited in the speaking, understanding, reading, and writ-ing in English needed in obtaining an education. Although localschool districts and States are making an effort, schools in generalare not meeting the needs of limited English proficiency children.Only about one-third of about 2.6 million children age 5 to 13 iden-tified in the 1978 study are receiving either bilingual education orEnglish as a second language instruction according to the Depart-ment of Education. This means that 1,800,000 children currently gowithout any bilingual aid at all and are left to sink or swim in aneducational system based on a language they do not understand.
The Federal Bilingual Education Act is due to expire in 1984. Ef-forts will begin to better understand the current system, and tolearn how the act might improve success in the field of bilingualeducation. We are already holding public hearings in the Educationand Labor Committee on this subject matter, and I believe on theoccasion of this week that we are celebrating, it is very importantand helpful that this subcommittee is holding this important hear-ing. I want to thank Chairwoman Hall for her excellent contribu-tion.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you. I appreciate your remarks.At this time we will hear from our first witness, Dr. Zamora.
STATEMENT OF GLORIA Z %MORA, PRESIDENT, NATIONALASSOCIATION FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION
Dr. ZAMORA. Thank you. I am Gloria Zamora from San Antonio,Tex. I have been an educator for more than 25 years, and I am cur-rently president of the National Association for Bilingual Educa-tion. I want to commend you, Representative Hall, for schedulingthese hearings in conjunction with the National Hispanic HeritageWeek. At the same time I want to commend you and your staff foridentifying bilingual education as a policy issue of particular im-portance to the Hispanic community
Although Hispanics have always valued education, the educa-tional community has not always valued Hispanics. Historically,Hispanics have been excluded from our Nation's schools and havebeen denied the benefits of an effective education.
I will leave to other witnesses today the grim chore of describingin detail the discriminatory and neglectful practices which com-pelled Congress to pass the Bilingual Education Act 15 years ago. Itsuffices to say that many of these practices involved the rejectionof Hispanic students because of their atypical language and cultur-al background.
The goals of the Bilingual Education Act are fundamental. TitleVII is meant to help language-minority students learn English;learn subject matter skills and content; develop a positive self-con-cept; and complete schooling.
To accomplish these fundamental objectives, title VII helps Stateand local education agencies develop instructional programs which
94
90
use both English and the student's native language. The simplicityand straight-forwardness of title VII's objectives belie the enormityof the work that has been done as well as the work which must beaccomplished through the Bilingual Education Act.
I was a first grade teacher in one of the first bilingual programsin Texas. This program was an experimental program which pre-dated enactment of title VII. I should tell you that establishment ofthis experimental program required a waiver of a 1918 Texas lawwhich prohibited the use in school of any language other than Eng-lish. This law was subsequently repealed.
My colleagues and I in the experimental program struggled with-out curriculum materials, without tests and measurements to guideus, and with little special training for the task at hand. We did thebest with what we had knowing that we could do much better thanhad been done, and, indeed, we could do no worse. Our confidenceand efforts were rewarded with success; our students gained aca-demically.
Because of my involvement in a pre-title VII bilingual program, Iappreciate the importance of Federal support. Despite the limitedamount of money appropriated for title VII, the program hasbrought about a quantum increase in our ability to provide effec-tive instructional programs to language-minority students.
As a result of title VII, a growing but still small number of His-panic students are being taught by teachers who have received pro-fessional preparation to teach language-minority students. Theseteachers use well-designed texts and materials to instruct their stu-dents, and employ increasingly accurate tests to measure studenteducational needs and progress.
Despite their newness, the bilingual programs made possible bytitle VII are improving the educational opportunities and outcomesfor Hispanic youth.
Because of the institution of bilingual programs, Hispanic stu-dents in many school districts are for the first time effectivelylearning English and essential subject matter skills. Students in bi-lingual programs consistently stay in school longer and attendschool more regularly. In many districts, the establishment of a bi-lingual education program has resulted in a dramatic decline indiscipline problems, and even more commonly, in the rate of falseplacement of language-minority students in special educationclasses and programs for the mentally retarded. As a result of im-proved educational preparation and enhanced self-image, more His-panic students are seeking postsecondary instruction than everbefore.
One of the reasons, or maybe I should say ways, in which bilin-gual education has improved the educational attainment of His-panic students is parental involvement. A study recently releasedby Columbia University rioted that "many critics of bilingual edu-cation fear that the programs will hinder the integration of minor-ity groups into American society and eventually foster cultural andpolitical separatist movements." The study concluded, however,that "our research indicates that parents become more involved intheir schools and communitymore integrated into the education-al and poM:c.al system on local, State, and national levelswhentheir children are enrolled in bilingual programs."
95
91
The political popularity of bilingual education in the Hispaniccommunity is testimony to its effectiveness. Yet, because of its po-litical popularity, the Bilingual Education Act has become thetarget of narrow interest groups who oppose social change andreform.
Coincident with the Reagan administration's taking office theHeritage Foundation issued a report entitled "Mandate for Leader-ship" setting forth a blueprint for "Policy Management in aConservative Administration." While the Heritage Foundation rec-ommended abolition of most Fedc:al education programs as well asthe education department, it focused special attention on two pro-grams ESEA title VII and the women's educational equity pro-gramas programs which must be immediately eliminated. Whyshould these programs be eliminated? Because, to quote the report,"they are at present being used as captive vehicles by groups ofideological militants."
Madam Chairperson, the Heritage Foundation could not havebeen more right. The supporters of bilingual education like thesupporters of WEEA are ideological militants; we militantly believein the American ideology of equal opportunity. For this we have noapology, for this we are proud.
Despite the absurdity of the Heritage Foundation report, "Man-date for Leadership" has influenced the Reagan admInistration'spolicy toward title VII. Although the administration failed to carryout the Heritage Foundation's primary recommendation that titleVII be eliminated through a block-grant scheme, it has succeededin slashing the level of funding for bilingual education.
The title VII authorization level has been cut from $400 to $139million, and more than 110,000 students have been dropped fromthe basic grant program. Last year, again this year, the Reagan ad-minstration has proposed further budget cutsto $94.5 million.Such an amount would serve approximately 120,000 studentsslightly more than one-third the number of students served infiscal year 1980 under the basic grant programs. These cuts havebeen made and proposed despite the finding by the Secretary ofEducation, Terrel H. Bell, that "schools in general are not meetingthe needs of limited English proficient children." These cuts havebeen made and proposed despite the fact that the population of stu-dents who need title VII services is growing twice as fast as thegeneral school age population.
But the attack on bilingual education involves more than money;indeed, it goes to the very essence of title VIIbilingual instruc-tion. Last year, subordinate education department staff who arewitnesses here today, released a draft report which purported toassess the relative effectiveness of "transitional bilingual educa-tion" as compared with other special programs for language-minor-ity students.
Time does not permit me to identify the glaring problems withthis staff report, in terms of its design, substance, or methodology.Accordingly, I would like to submit for the record certain publicmaterials and correspondence regarding the report.
Although Secretary Bell has publicly disclaimed the so-calledBaker/de Kanter report as an official Education Departmentreport, it is clear that the report has influenced the administra-
9(3
92
tion's proposals to amend title VII. It has also been cited by severalMembers of Congress.
Although the Baker/de Kanter report provided impetus to the ef-forts of the Reagan administration to amend ESEA title VII, theadministration's proposed legislation goes even beyond the scope ofthe flawed reports. The central finding of the reporta findingthat is more misleading than fallaciouswas that "transitional bi-lingual education"' programsthe kind of program authorizedunder title VIIwere not "uniformly effective" for all limited Eng-lish proficient students.
From this finding. opponents of bilingual education have fash-ioned a set of amendmentsironically called the Bilingual Educa-tion Improvement Actwhich would literally destroy the BilingualEducation Act. Among other things. the administration's amend-ments would further reduce the level of title VII authorization, re-strict student eligibility, and impose an inflexible limit on the du-ration of a school districts participation in the title VII program.But most importantly. the proposed amendments would eliminatethe current flexible requirement that a child's native language aswell as English be used in title VII programs. In other words, titleVII money could be used for monolingual instructional programs.
As Congressman Ed Towns noted in his statement to the Elemen-tary. Secondary. and Vocational Education Subcommittee:
Elimination of the current requirement concerning the use of a child's native lan-guage totally abdicates the Federal Government's responsibility to establish stand.ards for the approprixe use of its funds. Title VII is neither a mandate nor an entiClement program. If school districts do not want to use native language instructionthen they do not have to apply for title VII funds The Federal Government.however. should no: loosen educational standards which can only result in a diminution of equal educational opportunity for 1.E1' students.
Let us be perfectly clear. There can be no bilingual educationwithout native language instruction. If this Congress were to ap-prove the administration's amendmcmts, they must, at the veryleast, have the courage and decency to change the title of the Bilin-gual Education Act. My humble suggestion would be the Discredit-ed Educational Practices Act. Such a title would aptly describe thekinds of programs which it would support.
I trust that Congress will not reverse Federal policy, and that itwill not allocate scarce resources for monolingual education pro-grams which ignore the very special needs and resources of stu-dents who are linguistically and culturally atypical. My trust inCongress is based on the belief that you and your colleagues, likethe citizens you represent, are unwilling to reverse progress or torecommit the errors of the past.
I also hope that the recent statements of the President and VicePresident to Hispanic audiences regarding their support for bilin-gual education affects the administration's policies toward bilin-gual education. The President's desire to depoliticize this issuecould be accomplished if Education Department staff would focuson improving rather than destroying bilingual programs.
As a bilingual educator, I am all too aware of the shortcomingsof title VII. Indeed, much additional research is needed. Theneeded research is not of the pseudo-scientific type that examinesmeaningless program labels like "TBE," "ESL,' or "immersion;"
9.7
93
rather the needed research must focus on what types of bilingualeducation programs are being implemented, and what kinds of pro-grams work for what kinds of students under what conditions.
Further research on bilingual education must not commit thefallacy of universal treatment which equates bilingual education asa concept with bilingual education as a treatment. Bilingual educa-tion, as implemented in this country, is not a treatment of the sortcontemplated in a pure research design. Rather, bilingual educa-tion is an educational approachsimply involving the use of twolanguageswhich is operationalized in diverse classroom treat-ments. Instead of asking the irrelevant question of whether bilin-gual education works, we must examine the real life variableswhich determine the effectiveness of this or any other educationalprogram.
In closing, I would like to share with you a few thoughts aboutthe future direction of bilingual education policy in this country.
Virtually every major report on American education has identi-fied the scarcity of foreign language programs as a fundamentalproblem of our schools. At the same time, there is mounting evi-dence that the Nation's future is threatenedeconomically, diplo-matically, and militarilyby our inability to communicate withmost of the world's peoplepeople who use a language other thanEnglish.
Bilingual education has the potential for helping to improve ournational communications capability. I say, has the potential sincemost bilingual education programs, in fact, the only programs au-thorized under title VII, are transitional in nature. Quite honestly,the concept transitional bilingual education is the result of a politi-cal compromise. between the advocates and opponents of bilingualeducation.
Like most compromises, the transitional provision in the Bilin-gual Education Act is far from ideal. This provision has resulted inthe premature exiting of thousands of childrena practice whichdenies them the opportunity to develop their English languageskills to the fullest. Additionally, this practice does not promote thefull development of a child's native language skillsskills whichare not only a scarce commodity in this country, but important intheir own right and which have also been shown to be directly andpositively associated with English language acquisition.
Madam Chairperson, those of us who are culturally and linguisti-cally atypical in this society, and those of us who are fortunateenough to be bilingual feel that we have reached a point in timewhen it is no longer in our self-interest, nor in the best interests ofthis county' , to disassociate ourselves from our native language orculture.
Bilingualism, indeed multiliagualism, is both possible and patri-otic. America's linguistic and cultural resourcesthe richest butleast developed in the worldshould and can be expanded throughthe expansion and improvement of bilingual education. Thank youvery much.
Mrs. HALL. We thank you so very much. It's a very good presen-tation. Very well stated.
Our next witness will be Dr. Carmen Perez of the bureau of bi-lingual education, New York State University.
24-04 0 -6.1- -7 t - t
98
94
STATEMENT OF CARMEN PEREZ, CHIEF, BUREAU OF BILINGUALEDUCATION, NEW YORK STATE
Dr. PEREZ. Thank you. My name is Carmen Perez, and I am chiefof the bilingual education of the New York State Education De-partment. I appreciate the invitation to present testimony on bilin-gual education as we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Week.
I am especially pleased and proud to be able to report to you thatHispanic educators have assumed some very critical leadership po-si t i ons in education in New York State. For example, to name justa few, the chancellor of the board of ei..cation of the city of NewYork is Anthony Alvarado, the vice president of the New York CityBoard of Education is Miguel Martinez, the chairperson of the edu-cation committee of the New York State Assembly is Jose Serrano,and the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of General Educa-tion in the New York State Education Department is Maria Ra-mirez. I feel good about these individual accomplishments becausethey reflect positive growth for the community and portray a won-derful success story.
However, in spite of much progress, there is still a great deal tobe done as we strive to improve education for thousands of stu-dents in our schools who come from homes where language otherthan English is spoken. My dream, my personal dream for thefuture, is that some day our bilingualism will be viewed not as aliability, but as the national asset that it truly is.
In 1981-82, the year for which we have the most recent data,Hispanic students constituted 12 percent of the total student popu-lation in New York State. Of those, 22 percent were identified aslimited English proficientLEPand 92 percent of these receivedsome form of bilingual education funded by State and/or Federalfunds, with 21 percent provided services through ESEA tit: . VIII'll report more on these programs later in this testimonyAl-though Spanish-speakers constitute our largest LEP population,title VII bilingual education programs in our State were alsofunded in English and Arabic (I), Cambodian (I), Chinese (13), Farsi(1), French/Creol (20), Greek (8), Hebrew (2), Japanese (1), Italian(21), Korean (2), Mohawk (3), Portuguese (1), Russian (6), Seneca (2),Veitnamese (6), and Yiddish (3). Through our State programs weprovide services to over 100,000 LEP students from over 73 differ-ent language backgrounds.
In my testimony today, I would like to comment on what I thinkarc four critical issues on bilingual education, and that would besummarizing my text. The first of this is the continued use of limit-ed or faulty information to draw conclusions about the bilingualeducation program, I would like to share with you a story that Irecently heard an edited version, which I think kind of demon-strates the point that I would like to make.
Three men who were blindfolded and asked to describe a camelby just touching it. By the way, this story is also told about an ele-phant, but I don't dare use that image in these halls today. Eachman examined a portion of the animal and naturally generalizedhis findings to describe the whole animal. One man touched thetail which reminded him of a rope and declared that, "Based on mypersonal analysis, the camel looks like a snake." The second man
99
95
felt the humps which reminded him of mountains. He argued thatthe first man was wrong, and tried to convince the third man thatwhat they had in front of them was a monster with two bodies. Thethird man, however, felt the camel's legs and said,"They feel likewalking sticks." He told the other two that they were wrong, andon the basis of his personal evaluation he issued a national reportdeclaring that the camel is a very skinny animal which must looklike a stork. Obviously, each had described the camel based on thatlittle section that he had examined, had filtered the findingsthrough his own personal biases, and yet each was totally con-vinced of his accuracy, although it wasn't until the blindfolds wereremoved that they saw the total camel.
We still have many bindfolds to remove from persons issuing na-tional reports on bilingual education programs after having exam-ined only a portion of "the camel," with some of these reportsbased on only second- even third-hand information. And this bringsme to the second issue, which is the continuing misuse and misun-derstanding of the term "bilingual education."
In spite of 15 years of defining, explaining, researching and eval-uating, a critical issue in bilingual educatica continues to be thefailure of its critics to understand what bilingual education is de-signed to do for LEP students.
Bilingual education, and I will continue to repeat it, is a totaleducational program which uses English and the students' nativelanguage to help LEP students progress alongside their non-LEPpeers. It affords the LEP students the same opportunities for learn-ing, and for academic advancement as those provided their non-LEP peers, and does this by using both the native language andEnglish until the students are no longer limited in their ability tolearn through English.
The third issue that I would like to discuss is what seems to bethe blind acceptance of negative statements about bilingual educa-tion. More positive statements frequently go unrecognized.
Recently I had the privilege of presenting testimony before theCommittee on Education and Labor against the proposed BilingualEducation Improvement Act. A committee member supporting theproposed amendments cited the Twentieth Century Fund TaskForce report and quoted Diane Ravitch, a member of the task forcein support of his position. Hoping to clarify some of the issuesraised by this report, I invited Dr. Robert Wood, chairperson of thetask force, to make a presentation on the report at a meeting heldin Albany with my staff and a group of educators from the North-east.
Dr. Wood, as you may know, is a former superintendent of theBoston School System where he helped implement a very success-ful bilingual education program. Dr. Wood was questioned by theaudience on several issues, but the most serious of which beingthat statements in the report are being used out of context in thecampaign against bilingual education. Dr. Wood expressed his deepconcern over this misuse and explained that the task force did notand I quote, "intend to deal with pedagogy or any of the particu-lars of one program or another." He went on to say that the taskforce had wanted to make a simple declarative statement that:"We did not think that any child in America got a fair shake,
100 i
96
either economically or politically without a command of the Eng-lish language."
We don't disagree with this statement. We think this is impor-tant for all children, whether or not they are LEP. Dr. Wood wenton to say, to explain that when Diane Ravitch was interviewed onthe "McNeil-Lehrer Report," and I quote Dr. Wood again:
That got twisted into the fact that we were against bilingual instructional pro-grams as presently constituted Diane expressed preference for immersionwhat wesay in the report is that we are not going to deal with pedogogy or any of the par-ticulars of one program or another.
He went on to say, "There is a great danger, I think, of thepublic becoming so confused about what we're after, they'll comefor quick and simple solutions, that they will ignore the profession-al information and knowledge of educators themselves,' and saidDr. Wood, ". . . We're not going to wave magic wands and we'renot going to turn around 20 years of complicated activity. We'vegot to continue to have this on the agenda."
Dr. Wood ended his presentation in Albany by assuring us thathe stands ready to right the wrongs that have already begun tomanifest themselves as a result of the task force report. The netresult of the task force findings as they have been reported by themedia seem to, and I quote Dr. Wood one last time: "Counterposequality and equality and seem to affirm the conservative point ofview." He assured us that he will present a clarification of thisissue at the National Assembly of College Boards in Dallas and atother national meetings.
Subsequent to my discussion in discussing this issue with Dr.Wood, or subsequent to the meeting in Albany discussing this, heasked me to please convey this message to you at the hearingstoday, and I quote:
I have reviewed again the transcript of the McNeil-Leher program and ProfessorRavitch's comments. It confirms my statement in New York that the enhancementand improvement of bilingual programs in no way contradicts the objective of allchildren obtaining a command of English. Regardless of the comparative effective-ness of different instructional methods, my experience in the Boston Public Schools,and in observations of other school programs are a critical component for elemen-tary and secondary education in America public schools today.
The fourth critical issue that I would like to discuss relates tothe problems resulting from current title VII evaluation require-ments which preclude the aggregation of data across projects. At-tempting to do this could result in incorrect conclusions. It must beclearly understood that title VII is intended to provide successfulapplicants with funds to implement bilingual education programsbased on very unique locally assessed needs. This local option to de-termine the scope of the project, coupled with the absence of specif-ic evaluation procedures, produces data which cannot be uniformlyaggregated. In New York State we are trying to deal with thisproblem, and we are preparing guidelines which we hope will gointo effect this year, and establish reporting procedures for theevaluation of all bilingual education programs. We anticipate thatthis will enable us to collect meaningful information on the effec-tiveness of these programs.
In preparation for today's testimony we reviewed each of the 74title VII evaluation reports submitted to us for the 1981-82 school
101
97
year. Although for the reasons just mentioned I will not presentaggregated data, I am very encouraged by these reports, and let meassure you that each project has established a successful Englishlanguage component.
In conclusion, I would like to share with you a summary descrip-tion of a few of the title VII project implemented in 1981-82 inNew York City high schools.
The At Your Service bilingual program at the Park West HighSchool in Manhattan offered bilingual instruction and supportiveservices to 200 Hispanic LEP students in grades 9 through 12, em-phasizing vocational awareness. The population represented 12 na-tional backgrounds, with half from the Dominican Republic andabout a quarter from Puerto Rico.
The ultimate goal of the program was to develop students' profi-ciency in English. Highlights of this program included the develop-ment of curriculum materials in native language arts, biology, andcareer awareness; and supportive services to program students in-cluded guidance and academic counseling, home visits, and careerorientation.
Quantitative analysis of student achievement indicated that:In English-language development, on the average, students mas-
tered more than one objective per month of instruction as meas-ured by the criterion referenced English syntax test.
On the average, 77.3 percent of the students passed teacher-madeexaminations in Spanish-language courses.
The performance of program students in the content-areas ofmathematics, science, and social studies surpassed that of main-stream students by a statistically significant difference, thus meet-ing the program objective in this area.
The average attendance of program students surpassed that ofthe school by 18.5 percent.
At Walton High School, in the Bronx, the bilingual basic skillsthrough interdisciplinary career orientation program, in its secondyear of a 3-year funding cycle, provided instruction in ESL andnative language arts, as well as bilingual instruction in mathemat-ics, social studies, science, career orientation and career explora-tion, typing, music, and health careers to approximately 200 Span-ish-speaking students of limited English proficiency in grades 9through 12. Thirty-nine percent of the students were born inPuerto Rico, 30 percent in the Dominican Republic. All students,except one, were Hispanic and spoke Spanish at home.
A curriculum was developed for the health careers course and aspecial writing course for ESL was devised. Supportive services toprogram students consisted of psychological and career counseling,guidance services, and home visits. Parents of program studentswere involved in a Parent-Student Advisory Committee and attend-ed ESL classes taught by the program coordinator.
Quantitative analysis of student achievement indicated that:As measured by the criterion referenced English syntax test, pro-
gram students mastered 1.4 objectives for each month of ESL in-struction in the fall and 1.1 objectives per month in the spring,thereby meeting the proposed criterion level, with Level I studentssurpassing the objective during both semesters, although studentsat Level III failed to meet the criterion during the spring.
1 0 `4.
98
In native language arts, overall passing rates for fall and springwere 86 percent and 80 percent respectively.
Seventy-five percent of program student, passed teacher-madeexaminations in bilingual social studies classes during the fall se-mester. During the spring semester, the overall passing rate was 77percent.
In bilingual science courses, the overall passing rates for fall was62 percent, while for the spring it was 51 percent.
Fifty-eight percent of program students passed teacher-madetests in mathematics during the fall semester and 43 percentpassed similar tests during the spring.
Students in ESL 6 had a 96-percent overall passing rate andthose in ESL 7/8 had a 70-percent passing rate, surpassing thestated program objective.
The overall attendance rate of program students exceeded theaverage school-wide rate by 16 percentage points.
The bilingual basic skills program, at the South Bronx HighSchool, in its fourth and final year of funding, provided instructionin ESL and native-language skills, as well as bilingual instructionin mathematics, science, and social studies to approximately 370students of limited English proficiency [LEP] in grades 9 through12. All program students were Hispanic and spoke Spanish athome, with over 70 percent from Puerto Rico.
Among the activities of this program were curriculum develop-ment and support services. Curriculum development focused on thecompilation of existing materials that would be useful to programstudents. In additions, materials were created in the areas of worldhistory, world culture, health science, mathematics, and Spanishlanguage arts. Supportive services to program students consisted ofindividual and group guidance, career and vocational counseling,referrals to outside agencies, and occasional home visits.
Quantitative analysis of student achievement indicated that:In general, program students met the criterion level of one objec-
tive mastered for each month of ESL instruction, as indicated bythe criterion referenced English syntax test.
The gains made by program students on the New York City read-ing test were statistically significant.
The overall passing rate of program students in native languagearts classes was 94 percent in the fall and 64 percent in the spring.
The gains made by program students on the New York Citymathematics test were statistically significant.
In mathematics, the overall passing rate of program studentswas 53 percent in the fall and 60 percent in the spring.
The overall passing rate of program students in science classeswas 61 percent in the fall and 59 percent in the spring.
The attendance of program students-87 percentwas 15 per-centage points higher than the school-wide attendance..
Project BECOME, at the Sarah J. Hale Vocational High Schoolin Brooklyn, in its second year of a 3-year funding cycle, providedinstruction in ESL and native language arts, as well as bilingualinstruction in social studies, mathematics, and science, to approxi-mately 120 Hispanic and 90 Haitian students of limited Englishproficiency in grades 9 through 12. Twenty-six percent were bornin Puerto Rico and 12 percent in the Dominican Republic. The rest
103: '
99
of the Hispanic students were born in Central and South America;all spoke Spanish at home. Slightly more than 40 percent of theprogram students were born in Haiti and spoke French/Creole athome.
The program's philosophy was one of transition, equipping stu-dents with the skills needed to continue their education or to enterthe occupational world in the areas of business, cosmetology, or thehealth professions. In support of these goals, curriculum materialswere developed in Spanish for mathematics, science, and socialstudies. Supportive services to program students consisted offormal and informal personal and academic counseling, job assist-ance, home visits, and referrals to outside agencies. In addition,program staff maintained contact with mainstream and vocationalfaculty in an effort to monitor the academic progress of programstudents.
Quantitative analysis of student achievement indicated that:Overall, both Spanish- and Haitian-speaking program students
mastered one criterion referenced English syntax test objective permonth of instruction, this meeting the criterion set as the programobjective.
On the test of proficiency in English language skills, both Span-ish- and Haitian-speaking program students made gains whichwere statistically and educationally significant.
Gain scores on the Prueba de Lectura were statistically and edu-cationally significant at each grade level.
On the Test de Lecture, Haitian-speaking students made gainswhich were determined to be of moderate educational significance.The large gains made by 10th-grade students were also consideredto be statistically significant.
The gains made by Spanish-speaking students on the New YorkCity arithmetic computation test were both educationally and sta-tistically significant for the 9th, 10th, and 12th grades.
The gains made by Haitian-speaking students on a teacher-madeinstrument of mathematics achievement were statistically and edu-cationally significant.
In general, both the Spanish- and Haitian-speaking program stu-dents performed well in the content-areas of mathematics, science,and social studies with overall passing rates increasing from fall tospring.
In native language arts courses, Spanish- and Haitian-speakingprogram students generally achieved high passing rates in both thefall and spring.
The attendance rate for the bilingual program students washigher than the overall rate for mainstream students.
In its first year of a 2-year funding cycle, the bilingual academicand career orientation program at George Washington High Schoolin Manhattan offered bilingual instruction and supportive serviceswith a career orienation focus to 250 Hispanic limited English pro-ficient students in grades 9 through 11. Program students were allHispanic and spoke Spanish at home, with approximately 81 per-cent born in the Dominican Republic.
Quantitative analysis of student achievement indicates that:On the average, students mastered more than one objective per
month of instruction as measured by the criterion referenced Eng-
1 04
100
lish syntax test, and succeeded in achieving the criterion set as theprogram objective.
Overall, students who took the high school equivalency tests inSpanish reading, writing, and mathematics met the criterion of a65 percent passing rate set as the program objective in both falland spring.
In general, students who took teacher-made examinations inmathermatics, science, and social studies courses taught bilinguallyreceived overall passing rates which ranged from 56.5 percent insocial studies in the fall to 88.3 percent in science in the spring. Inall of the content areas, there appeared to be a positive relation be-tween grade and student performance: the higher the grade, thehigher the percent passing.
Overall, 96 percent of the students enrolled in mainstream con-tent-area courses taught in English and who received services fromthe program, passed teacher-made examinations in those areas.
The average attendance rate of program students surpassed thatof the school by 21.7 percentage points.
In Queens, the Grover Cleveland High School basic bilingual pro-gram, during its third and last year of title VII funding, offered in-struction in ESL and native language skills in Italian and Spanish.In addition, bilingual instructional offerings in science, math, andsocial studies were available to the 142 limited English-proficientparticipating students.
The program's major goal was to promote the acquisition of Eng-lish language skills needed for mainstreaming within a 2-year spanwhile nurturing a strong personal and ethnic identity in the stu-dent. This policy was advanced by placing entering students inmajor subject-area classes in which instruction was conducted inboth the native language and English with most texts and materi-als in English.
Quantitative analysis of student achievement indicated that:In general, both Spanish-speaking and Italian-speaking program
students mastered at least one objective per month on instructionon the criterion referenced English syntax test, during both the falland spring semesters.
The overall passing rates of Spanish-speaking program studentsin the content areas in the fall ranged from 75 percent in scienceto 89 percent in mathematics. In the spring, the overall passingrates ranged from 67 percent in mathematics to 90 percent insocial studies.
The overall passing rates of Italian-speaking program students inthe content areas in the fall ranged from 78 percent in social stud-ies to 86 percent in science. In the spring, the overall passing ratesranged from 50 percent in mathematics to 89 percent in science.
In native language arts, the overall passing rate for Spanish-speaking program students was 92 percent in the fall and 76 per-cent in the spring.
For Italian-speaking program students, the overall passing ratein native language arts was 100 percent in the fall-4 studentsand 86 percent-7 studentsin the spring.
The attendance rate of the program students was 5.9 percentagepoints higher than the average school-wide attendance percentage.
105
101
I would like to share with you some of our successes, individualsuccesses, because we examined bilingual education in the analyzeddata. We reviewed written reports, we consult the experts, and wehear many statements, but how often do we stop to look at the per-sons most directly affected by the program, that is the individualstudent.
I will conclude my testimony by sharing a few success stories ofsome boys and girls from the bilingual education program in Roch-ester, N.Y.
First, the three Korean sisters, Chung Son No, Som Me No, andSom He No, taught fellow students and faculty members all aboutKorean culture. They also received perfect attendance awards andwere commended for consistently making the honor roll during thepast academic year.
The second one is Hoang Le who was a triple honor recipientthis past year. One honor was for his superiority as a math stu-dent; the second for perfect attendance; and the third was a Har-vard Book Award for highest ranking young man in the juniorclass category.
He also received an honorable mention for his athletic ability, asa member of the varsity swim team.
The third one, after 3 years in the program, Maria Alvarado,who is now an honor roll student, scoring within the 95th percen-tile in the MAT in both math and reading.
Mildred Vega won a Rochester citywide writing contest in Eng-lish. She entered the bilingual program in 1978.
Hilda Martinez, who entered the program in 1980, has been rec-ognized as an outstanding student, having gained 5 years' growthin reading in English after only 1 year of instruction.
And the list goes on and on.I have come before you today with many different kinds of suc-
cess storiesthe success stories of Hispanic educators who havebecome school superintendents, vice presidents of boards of educa-tion, assistant commissioners; I have shared some of the impressiveevaluation results of title VII programs in New York State; and Ihave proudly proclaimed the outstanding accomplishments of spe-cific students in but one city in New York State.
I have come before you today with many different kinds of suc-cess stories, but 1 know that I do not have to remind you that therestill remain many problems to be solved. Bilingual education willcontinue to be one important avenue to success for linguistic mi-nority students, if we do not lose sight of the importance of concep-tual development through the native language, and the teaching ofthe native language as well as English, with two languages for ev-eryone; if we will only view bilingual students as an asset not a lia-bility; if we continue to hope and to fight and to care. I will, willyou?
I thank you.Mrs. HALL. Thank you. Our next speaker is Dr. Lopez, director of
California State Department of Education.
1061. t .
102
STATEMENT OF DR. GUILLERMO LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OFCALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Dr. LOPEZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman andmembers of the committee. My name is Guillermo Lopez, and I amthe chief of the office of bilingual bicultural education in the Cali-fornia State Department of Education. The department administersthe public school system in California which includes 58 county of-fices of education and 1,042 local educational agencies with 4,702elementary schools and 2,209 secondary schools.
The total student enrollment in these schools is 4.1 million.Many of these students are limited English proficient pupils. TheState educational agency, a number of our school districts, andmany of our LEP pupils have benefited from the assistance pro-vided by title VII of Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Iam pleased to have this opportunity to testify on the future direc-tion of that legislation.
The education of the LEP pupils is of great importance for theState and for the Nation, especially as a number of LEP pupils increases, not only in our State but in our country.
In California the increase in the number of LEP pupils is relatedto the general State populations.
During the 1970's the State of California experienced an explo-P`ve population growth. In 1970 the total State population was 20Anion. By 1977 the population grew to 22.7 million and was 2.3million in 1980 accord;ng to the census. That figure is projected tobe 26.5 million by 199,;.
The growth from 1970 to 1980 is attributed mainly to demograph-ic changes in racial and national origin minority populations.These populations comprised 20.5 percent of the population in 1970,and 31 percent in 1980. Various studies project that these groupswill comprise at least 55 percent of the State population in 1990.Those are tremendous growths and demographic changes, and theyare also reflected in the school population.
The Anglo student population in California decreased from 74.7percent in 1967, to 63.8 percent in 1977, to 59 percent in 1980, andis projected to be about 44.3 percent in 1990. At the same time, theNOM student population rose from 25.3 percent in 1967, to 36 per-cent in 1977, and is projected to be about 55 or 56 percent in 1990.
Closely associated with the trends in demographic changes in theschools are the growing number of LEP pupils. The number of LEPpupils has increased 58.6 percent from 288,427 in 1979 to 457,542 in1983. Among this group Hispanics now number 337,141, or 73.7 per-cent and Asian groups account for 19 percent.
Questions are generally asked as to why the tremendous growthin that number in our State. There is generally three answers tothat. One, of course, is California is so close to the border of theSouth, the Pacific Ocean is the main avenue for people from thePacific. That is one of the main reasons. The second reason is thenational policy on the refugees. I would say that 35, if not 37 per-cent of all the refugees that come from Southeast Asia also settlein our State. More importantly, I think these last few years, as wehave learned how to better identify with diagnosed relative profi-
107
103
ciency in English, as well as in primary language, and the role thatthese components or factors play in learning and achievement.
As we learned more about that identification and diagnosis ofrelative stengths and the importance of that in learning and educa-tion, this contributes to more effectiveness in the identification ofLEP pupils.
The growth in these numbers is of great importance to us. Pursu-ant to Lau, we attempt to safeguard the civil rights of these stu-dents, and we support bilingual education.
The State has adopted its own landmark status in support of bi-lingual education, but like the institutionalization of any educa-tional approach, this is not accomplished easily. As in other States,bilingual education in our State has been beset by the number ofproblems, including a lack of adequate funding, shortages of quali-fied teachers, and insufficient and inappropriate materials.
Despite these obstacles, I think it's safe to say that bilingual edu-cation is becoming mainstream education in our State and hasbeen acknowledged as the foremost educational strategy to meetthe needs of these 457,000 limited English proficient pupils. A goodpart of that success story goes to the support provided by title VIIof this act.
The bill currently before you would allow school districts seekingtitle VII funds greater flexibility in selecting instructional strate-gies to meet these needs. That is to say something other than bilin-gual education.
I heartily endorse the concept of giving educators at the locallevel both the freedom and responsibility to make program deci-sions for the students in their schools. For example, in our Statelaw there is a great deal of flexibility. There are six clearly definedprogram options that schools may choose from. One of the optionseven allows a good deal of experimentation if the applicant, theschool district in this case, can strongly support taking that type ofan experimental approach, and can cite a good amount of litera-ture that would seem to support that approach.
However, I think a balance must be struck between the flexibil-ity and the obligation of Federal and State decisionmakers to pro-tect the rights of language minority students. The right of the lan-guage minority students is that they receive instruction in a com-prehensible manner.
There is one obligation that we as policymakers, or who are ad-vising, on policy should constantly keep in mind. It's the right inan LEP pupil to receive a comprehensible instructional program.
Now, the bill before you proposes other alternatives than bilin-gual education. This is a major shift in policy. There is an ever-present danger that unless those policy decisions are based on thebest available educational research and evidence, that many lan-guage minority students will again be offered only the alternativeof sink or swim English-only submersion which has had such tragicconsequences in the past.
Secretary Bell has stated that it was not the administration'sintent to let the bars down, nor to fund "any half-baked plan," andthat districts seeking title VII grants to implement a.. approachother than bilingual education would have to supply evidence thatthe alternative approach had a high probability of success.
104
The Secretary goes on further to state that such evidence alreadyexists for two alternative approaches, English as a second languageand immersion. Quite frankly, I find the available evidence forthese two approaches less convincing, and I wish to share thoseconcerns with you.
Let me begin with the ESL, or English as a second language. Aprogram based on the notion that concentrated instruction to de-velop English language skills will help students learn English morequickly and not fall behind in subject areas taught in English.
ESL has always been a component of bilingual programs, and itis difficult to find many programs that demonstrate the effective-ness of ESL in and of itself as a sole alternative.
There is one such program that has been widely publicized, andit seems that the Secretary is relying most heavily on that. I am, ofcourse, referring to the Fairfax County Public Schools' ESL pro-gram. While I congratulate the educators in Fairfax County, I seri-ously question, for a number of reasons, the generalizability oftheir work to most situations throughout the country.
First, the cost of the Fairfax County program is well beyond thatmeans of most local school districts. At the start of the program,the average per pupil expenditure in the district was almost $2,700,and with students in the ESL program receiving an additional $750per student of additional support.
By comparison, the average per pupil expenditure in Californiawas $2,100.
Second, these high levels of funding allow Fairfax County to es-tablish a pupil-teacher ratio of 12 to 1. With that type of a pupil-teacher ratio, almost any educational program will be successful.Most of us struggle with 30 if not 35 to 1.
Third, Fairfax County provided a tuition free summer programfor its LEP pupils. That is a luxury which those of us in Californiacan no longer afford.
Finally, and most importantly, there are some real questionsthat remain about the success of that program. The results of theprogram were reviewed for the Department of Education by theOffice of Planning, Budget and Evaluation. The reviewers conclud-ed, and I quote:
While the Fairfax County program is very successful when looked at in terms ofgain over the school year, there are grounds to question whether students reached alevel of performance at which their lack of English skills was no longer holdingthem back in school.
The evidence put forth by the Department of Education for theimmersion alternative is no more convincing than that presentedfor ESL. It seems that officials, as well as many educators through-out the country, are wanting to take advantage of the successes ex-perienced by our Canadian colleagues that is so widely reported inthe journals. A word about the Canadian immersion programs andwhat we educators in California and the country are trying to do.
Immersion programs were originally developed in Canada in re-sponse to the pressure from upper-middle class English speakingparents who felt their children would need to be bilingual to suc-ceed in Canada, and that the ty of French as a second languageinstruction they were being offepered was insufficient to achieveFrench-English bilingualism.
105
These parents understood that, given the prestige of English inCanada, their children could be schooled in French at no expenseto their English skills. After 5 to 7 years of immersion instruction,their children have acquired near-native skills in French whileachieving at our above grade level norms in English.
Two points need to be made about the Canadian immersion pro-grams before we examine it more fully. First, they have shown thatimmersion is a viable technique for teaching majority language stu-dents a minority language. Canadian reseachers make no compara-ble claim about the viability of immersion as an approach for mi-nority language students learning the majority language.
I would like to provide at this time a series of papers that havebeen commissioned by the California State Department of Educa-tion with the assistance of title VII. There will be a series of sixpapers entitled "Studies on Immersion Education, A Collection forU.S. Educators." Three of the papers are written by Canadian re-searchers, starting with Fred Genesee who delineates the historicalprospectives of how the immersion papers were generated.
The second is by Jim Cummins and Sharon Lapkin who describefrom board level to central office to school levels what an immer-sion program is in Canada, and not anything else we in Americawould choose to say it is.
The third paper is a summary of 10 years of research by MerrillSwain on the Canadian experiments. The fourth one will be apaper by Dr. Russell Campbell from UCLA on the status of immer-sion programs for language majority students in our country.
The final paper by Eduando Hernandez Chavez will cite the im-portant historical factors and see how they apply to language mi-nority students, which is entirely different. We in the CaliforniaState Department of Education have great hopes that this researchwill shed some light on what itimmersionis and is not, andwhat the potentials are, so we don't waste another '-.f ries of genera-tion of kids under erroneous assumption.
I would like to quote one thing from Wallace, Lambert, and Iquote:
The story is completely different for language minority young people. Immersionprograms were not designed or meant for ethnolingtnstic groups in North Americawho have some lanpage other than English as the main home language. To placesuch children in an all-English instructional program would be to reverse the im-mersion process in a harmful, subtractive way. Their personal identities, their earlyconceptual development, their chances of competing or succeeding in schools or inoccupations and their interest in trying to succeed would all be hampered by a re-versed immersion-inEnglish program.
The claim that there is sufficient evidence to support immersionas an alternative to bilingual education seems to be based on oneevaluation study of a small immersion program in McAllen, Texas,after only 9 months of program implementation at the kindergar-ten level. To base national policy for better than 3.6 million lan-guage minority students on the inconclusive results of a programfor 78 kindergarten students is very premature.
What then are my recommendation to you as you consider thisbill? Although I remain steadfast in my conviction that bilingualeducation is the preferred educational program for language minor-ity students in the United States, I am equally committed to educa-
1 .1 0
106
tional innovation to meet local needs and conditions. If there arealternative approaches to bilingual education, those approachesshould be explored and carefully evaluated. I believe, therefore,that four program options might be made available to local schooldistricts seeking title VII grants, and that these four allowable op-tions be clearly defined either in statute or regulations.
One, transitional bilingual education. There is a wealth of em-pirical data that supports the transitional bilingual education.Some studies may say that it is not consistently uniform, but theimportant thing to learn from that statement is when they are ef-fective, what are the factors? What are the variables that affectthem? That is the question to learn from that particular premise.
I would like to leave with the committee a summary of the re-search that was commissioned by our State department of educa-tion with the assistance of title VII, that synthesizes the researchon bilingualism over the last 10 years, written by experts who haveconsistently and with high quality contributed to the research. Wehave used this as the basis, as the theoretical foundation of bilin-gualism in our State, and it's being used throughout. I would sug-gest that if we emphasize the programs that work and take a lookat why they work, and not the others, and try to replicate the suc-cesses, we will find that there is a great deal of consistency. Iwould like to leave a copy of that as well as the digest of this forstaff use later on.
There is ample evidence that is cited again and again. If ourintent is to replicate successes, we in California are attempting todo it by providing the guidance to use consistent program compo-nents within that flexibility.
A second option that could be made available by the Congress isfull bilingual education. Mention has been made already by otherspeakers that historically the United States has been guilty ofsquandering its linguistic resources. Almost invariably, newcomersto our shores have lost all proficiency in their native language bythe third generation. We sometimes stamp it out in the earlygrades, and spend a lot of money in the secondary grades for themto acquire a second language. Every now and then comes the col-lege recomendation that 2 or 3 years of a foreign language be re-quirements.
On the one hand we stamp it out early, and then spend money tobuild it up afterward. That is inconsistent policy and a waste ofhuman resources.
A third alternative that could be considered is ESL only. I wishnot to be quoted out of context on this one, but I do believe that inlimited instances, especially with young adults who come to oursecondary schools, a goodly number already come with good basicskills development in their primary language. That means includ-ing reading and writing, so one doesn't have to start from scratch.
A fourth option that I would suggest consideration of are experi-mental alternatives. There may be other options that have meritand applicants who can make a sufficently strong case for expex-permentation should be considered. This raises another issue to beaddressed, the inadequacy of title VII evaluations have been ac-knowledged by numerous studies. I would hope that a carefullyplanned external evaluation of approved projects be thought of in
107
advance and very well planned. The necessary contractual arrange-ments for such an external evaluation should be made well in ad-vance of the approval of applications to carry out alternative ap-proaches so that we might know not only the outcomes of suchprojects, but also how they were implemented, if implemented atall. I want to stress those latter portions.
So often we are so concerned with the outcomes or the achieve-ment which are important, but as the other speakers also alludedto, little attention is paid to whether the program is implementedas designed. We take a look at achievements and results simply be-cause they use bilingual money, but not if they implement a bilin-gual program.
Of the four options herein described, it seems clear that theweight of empirical evidence supports not limiting the number oftransitional bilingual education or full bilingual education applica-tions approved for title VII funding. The Fame cannot be said of thelatter two options. Until sufficient evidence is available for thoseoptions, the department of education should only approve a limitednumber of the most promising and carefully developed applicationsfor alternatives to bilingual education.
The increased range of program types that might be foundedraises another issue that needs to be addressedprogram evalua-tion. The inadequacies of title VII evaluations have been acknowl-edged by numerous studies. If, I hope, a major purpose of the pro-posed legislation is to help us understand which approaches workbest with which language minority students under what circum-stances, then it is crucial that provisions be made, in law, for acarefully planned external evaluation of approved projects. Thenecessary contractual arrangements for such an external evalua-tion should be made well in advance of the approval of applicationsto carry out alternative approaches so that we might know notonly the outcomes of such projects, but also how they were imple-mented, if implemented at all.
Some comments on the funding level is also in order. At a mini-mum, a funding level of $300 million is needed. Given the changingdemographics in our State, there is a greater need than ever forFederal assistance to school districts to build capacity. There is alsoa parallel need to train bilingual teachers, and paraprofessionalaides.
The proposed amendments change project staff requirements byproviding that only instructional personnel who are proficient inEnglish may be used, and that instructional personnel who are pro-ficient in the native language of the LEP students shall be used tothe extent such personnel are available.
The purpose of the proposed amendments is to insure that proj-ects are staffed by personnel proficient in English. Although thepurpose may seem laudable, there is no pedagogical reason for itsinclusion and it would, in fact, restrict the flexibility of LEA's tostaff programs with the competent individuals available.
The section should be changed to read: "The program will usethe most qualified available staff including staff who are proficientin English or the native language of the LEP pupils or both as isapropriate to the proposed program."
112 ,s . ,
108
I would like to conclude my comments with a request that Stateeducational agencies be given a stronger role in the approval proc-ess for title VII applications. Heretofore, the State agencies havebeen required to review all of the applications from their States,but it is my opinion that the final approval process operates inde-pendently from this State review.
Any alternative approach to bilingual education must be basedon well described local conditions. It makes sense, then, that Stateeducational agencies are in the best position to evaluate the accu-racy of those descriptions and the appropriateness of the proposedtitle WI projects.
In advocating an enhanced role for the State agencies in the pro-posal review, I want to make it clear to members of the committeethat my remarks should not be construed as support for a dimin-ished Federal role in protecting the education rights of languageminority students in this country. In education, the Federal Gov-ernment has been traditionally called upon to defend the rights ofour least advantaged citizens, and I see no season for that role tobe abandoned now.
Thank you.Mrs. HALL Thank you very much. I do want to thank you for
bringing the reports with you. I was going to ask about the bilin-gual report. Thank you very much. We are so pleased to get somuch good information. It sounds very interesting about what youare doing in California, and it's quite possible that this committeewill be interested in coming out there to really observe some of thisin the future. It sounds real good.
Dr. LOPEZ. I should like to pursue the invitation.Mrs. HAIL. Thank you very much.Our next speaker is Dr. Keith Baker, editor, "Bilingual Educa-
tion: A Reappraisal of Federal Policy."
STATEMENT OF KEITH BAKER AND ADRIANA de KANTER, EDI-TORS, "BILINGUAL EDUCATION: A REAPPRAISAL OF FEDERALPOLICY"Ms. DE KANTER. I am Adriana de Kanter. Keith and I are coedi-
tors of the book you are referring to, and we've put together a jointstatement.
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to address this sub-committee on the topic of research in bilingual education. I willbegin our joint testimony and Dr. Baker will complete our state-ment. First, it honors me to speak of a topic about which I have aspecial understandingbilingual education.
Madam Chairman, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Corrada, and Mr. Leland, Iwas raised in a Spanish-speaking household. My father was a Mexi-can citizen when my parents moved to the United States, as weremy brothers and sisters who were born in Mexico. Immigrationlaws were different in the early 1950's, so that while my motherwas an American citizen, her children were not.
My oldest brother spoke poor English when he came to this coun-try. Consequently, he had trouble in school. My parents, who werebilingual, spoke English in our home to facilitate his learning. Stillthere were problems. For example, when his teachers assigned him
113
109
homework, he would come home and sweep and dust and mop. Histeachers accused him of not doing his homework; his written as-signments were not turned in. He, of course, did not understandtheir unhappiness with him. He did not like school.
Incidents such as these continued throughout his early years.Today, Madam Chairman, he is an electrical engineer serving as acaptain in the U.S. Army. Soon he will be promoted to major.
Now, many of you gathered here today may be expecting me tosay next, "My brother made it so other children can make it, too."This is definitely not the point I wish to convey. My theme is thatchildren from language minority backgrounds have special needs.These needs must be met. However, no two children are alike, noris their background. An education program that works for onechild may not work well for another. Perhaps my brother wouldhave responded well to a bilingual education program. Maybe hewould not have. His story is over now, but the story of many otherchildren is only beginning.
After rearing four children, and seeing them through college, mymother received one of the first title VII teacher training grantsavailable from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.This grant enabled her to complete a doctorate in bilingual educa-tion. She was committed to assisting language minority childrenmake the transition from their home language to English afterhaving experienced firsthand the problems of her own children.
Since 19'79 she has been a bilingual education teacher trainer inHouston placing many young people into bilingual education train-ing position in the greater Houston area. As Oscar Cardenas, direc-tor of the Texas education agency's State bilingual education pro-gram, can confirm, she is an active member of her profession andshe believes in what she is doing. And so do I.
You may believe by now I have strayed far from my intendedtopicresearch in bilingual educationbut bear with me please. Ihave come to the second point on why I believe testifying is so im-portant. I am a graduate of the Lyndon Baines Johnson School ofPublic Affairs where students are trained for careers in publicservice. The LBJ School taught the tools of policy analysissuch assurvey research, economics, and ethics. We were privileged to studyunder some of the finest public servants this country has everknowWilbur Cohen, the father of social security; John Gronowski,former Postmaster General during the Kennedy administration andAmbassador to Poland under LBJ; and Hon. Barbara Jordon whorepresented the State of Texas in this House of Congress. Under suchtutelage, we were taught to do our best..
Each student who graduates from the LBJ school takes part inpolicy research projects which involve analysis of a relevant policyissue. My research project involved the implementation of civilaction No. 5281, U.S. v. Texas, which is the court order to desegre-gate Texas schools and to implement bilingual education.
What the LBJ school taught me was to search for the facts andmake a decision, conclusion, and recommendation based on that setof facts.
I have found since starting work in Washington that publicpolicy is too frequently made on the basis of no information, misin-formation, only part of the information, or on old information.
26-464 0-83--8 114
110
While decisionmakers may be well intended and wish to make thebest policy for the public good, such policy should not be madewithout examining the facts. Without examining the facts, misrep-resentation of the issues are to be expected and misperceptions ofthe problem run rampant.
This is what has happened in bilingual education research.Madam Chairman, we are pleased to appear today to set the
record straight as to what the Baker/de Kanter report says anddoes not say. Both advocates for bilingual education and foesagainst bilingual education have distorted our findings to furthertheir points of view. This has happened often and from many dif-ferent types of persons who live in many different parts of thecountry. We would like to share with you a few examples of thesedistortions before discussing with you the findings and conclusionsof the Baker/de Kanter report.
Earlier this year a bilingual education advocate in Illinois madeseveral misleading statements in a newsletter published by the Na-tional Association for Bilingual Education. First he alleged thatour report was a "Vehicle of the Reagan administration for dis-crediting and disenfranchising bilingual education." In fact,Madam Chairman, our report was done for and at the request ofthe Carter administration. Then he alleged that "Baker and deKanter claim that their efforts were independent of Federal Gov-ernment sponsorship." Both of us work for the Federal Govern-ment and the Baker/de Kanter report was written as part of ourjob. It would be impossible to make claims that the report waswritten independent of the Government's sponsorship. Obviously,we make no such claim.
Rudolf Troike, a well known advocate of bilingual education, tes-tified before the Illinois State Board of Education that:
Adriana de Kanter publicly disassociated herself from the report and its conclu-sions, saying that she had been required to give assent to it by the office in whichshe had formerly worked, even though she disagreed with the conclusions.
Madam Chairman, none of this is true. After the Illinois StateBoard of Education checked Dr. Troike's allegations with us, whichwere false, Dr. Troike recanted this part of his testimony andapologized for stating as fact something that was hearsay.
Perhaps the most amazing misinterpretation of the Baker/deKanter report was a monograph written by Hernandez-Chavez andothers in 1981. This monograph, published by the cross-cultural re-source center of Sacramento State University purports to be "A re-sponse to the widely circulated de Kanter/Baker (sic) draft report,'The Effectiveness of Bilingual Education: A Review of the Litera-ture issued for the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Budget ofthe Department of Education."
Madam Chairman, Hernandez-Chavez et al. acknowledge in afootnote on page 1 of their monograph that they never read thereport. What these reviewers seem to have read were some of ourpreliminary research notes.
Opponents of bilingual education have misstated the findings ofthe. report. If you read the New York Times, you know they havehad a series of antibilingual education articles and editorials. Withreference to our study, we believe a New York Times editorial re-
115
111
ferred to "New evidence that expensive bilingual education pro-grams do not work."
During the same period the Houston Chronicle ran this headline:"Bilingual efforts are not paying off, studies show" and the Wash-ington Post reported "Studies found little evidence that the bilin-gual education programs worked." These conclusions are those ofthe editorial writers and reporters. They are not the conclusions ofthe Baker/de Kanter report, as you will see.
Madam Chairman, others have appeared before the Congress andspoken of our report. In many cases our report has not been accu-rately described to the Congress. In hearings held by the U.S.Senate Education Subcommittee in April 1982, Llanes, one of theauthors of the misleading Sacramento State College manuscript,says: "The report fails to find studies of successful bilingual pro-grams in the United States." In fact, almost one-third of the stud-ies included in our review found positive effects for transitional bi-lingual education.
At these same hearings, Tucker refers to Baker and de Kanter asan "unofficial study." The study was publicly released by the U.S.Department of Education along with six other policy analysis stud-ies of bilingual education in response to legal action by the State ofTexas on September 25, 1981. In April 1983, the Department sentus to present the findings of the completed study before the Ameri-can Education Research Association. A summary of the final ver-sion of the report was published in the Department's official maga-zine, American Education, in July 1983. Copies are available today.
Tucker then says, "The authors claim that English immersionwould be a reasonable substitute for bilingual education." Again,we invite the reader to review our conclusions and see for himselfthat we never make any such claim.
Finally, at the request of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, twoemployees of the American Psychological Association coordinated areview of our report by several college professors. The letter to theHispanic Caucus summarizing these reviews omitted the reviewersagreement with our conclusions.
Madam Chairman, in the remainder of our testimony we wouldlike to cover two points. First, we will tell you how and why we didthe study. Second, we will tell you what the report concluded.
Dr. BAKER. As we stated earlier, the Baker/de Kanter reportbegan in September 1980 after the Carter administration proposeda regulation that would have mandated transitional bilingual edu-cation as the only educational approach allowed in America'sschools to meet the special language and education needs of lan-guage minority students. In reviewing this proposed regulation, aWhite House task force asked the Department of Education wheth-er mandating a single approach, transitional bilingual education,was justified in terms of its educational effectiveness. We were as-signed the task of answering that question. To do so, we reviewedall the evaluation studies of transitional bilingual education andother instructional alternatives we could find within the timeframewe were given.
At this point it would be useful to briefly describe the major in-structional alternatives for teaching language minority children.We find that these terms are often misused.
I
116
112
Submersion: Language-minority children are placed into an ordi-nary classroom where English is spoken. There is no special pro-gram to help them overcome the language problem. Submersion isaptly described as "sink or swim." The minority home language isnot used at all in the classroom. An all day submersion program isillegal under the Lau decision.
English as a second language. ESL students are placed in regu-larsubmersioninstruction for most of the day. During part ofthe day, however, these students receive special instruction in Eng-lish. This extra help is based on a special curriculum designed toteach English as a second language. The non-English home lan-guage may or may not be used in conjunction with ESL instruction.
Immersion: Instruction is in English, as in the case of submer-sion, but there are important differences. The immersion teacherunderstands the non-English home language. The immersion teach-er may occasionally use the non-English language to clarify in-struction, but generally teachers only speak in English. Further-more, the curriculum is structured so that prior knowledge of Eng-lish is not assumed as subjects are taught. Content is introduced ina way that can be understood by the students. The students ineffect learn English and subject content simultaneously. Immersiondiffers from transitional bilingual instruction in that the home lan-guage is not used by the teacher for formal instruction, exceptwhere it is a subject, and subject area instruction is taught in Eng-lish from the beginning of the program.
Transitional bilingual education: Reading is taught in both thenon-English home language and in English. Subject matter istaught in the non-English home language until the students' Eng-lish is good enough for them to participate successfully in a regularclassroom. ESL or immersion methods for part of the day are oftenused to help minimize the time needed to master English. Use ofnon-English home language instruction is phased out as regularEnglish instruction is phased in. TBE is differentiated from theother approaches by the use of the non-English home language forinstruction in nonlanguage subjects.
It is important to remember that our report is not an across-the-board analysis of the effects of bilingual education. We addressed aspecific policy question which imposed some limitations on what wedid. Since we were addressing a question of Federal policy, we onlylooked at the effects of bilingual education on learning English andon achievement in other nonlanguage subjects. Other possible goalsfor bilingual education, such as improved performance in the non-English language, were not considered since they are not Federalpolicy objectives.
In reading these evaluation studies, we had to make two deci-sions. First, we had to decide if the study under review had em-ployed a scientifically sound methodology. In plain English, couldthe study be believed? We found that almost 80 percent of the stud-ies suffered from such serious methodological flaws that no confi-dence could be placed in what was reported. This left us with 39studies to consider further.
We have been criticized for being excessively harsh in how wejudged the studies. However, we have identified five other reviewsof this literature and they all had more stringent cr:teria than
113
ours. We found a higher proportion of acceptable studies than didany of the other reviews. The most stringent review, Zappert andCruz, found 97 percent of the bilingual evaluations were scientifi-cally unacceptable.
The second question we asked was what do these 39 believeablestudies tell us with respect to the question the White House asked?Should transitional bilingual education be mandated?
Madam Chairman, I would like to read you, word for word, thefirst conclusion of the Baker/de Kanter report. We made this thefirst conclusion because we think it is the most important conclu-sion that can be drawn from this research literature. That conclu-sion is:
Special programs can improve achievement in language minority students. Theliterature we reviewed indicates that special programs designed to overcome lan-guage difficulties in school can improve the achievement of language minoritychildren . . . note, though, that while special programs have been shown to be ef-fective, this conclusion says nothing about the effects of any particular instructionalapproach.
We based this conclusion or. a number of studies that demon-strated improved performanceoften dramatic gainsfor severalinstructional methods. Transitional bilingual education was repre-sented in these studies, although successful programs were not lim-ited to transitional bilingual education. Successful examples ofmaintenance bilingual programs, immersion and English as asecond language-only programs were also found.
At the time we reached this conclusion, Federal policy allowedonly transitional bilingual education. Since we had found evidencethat not only transitional bilingual education, but also several al-ternative instructional methods worked, we were led to our secondconclusion:
Federal policy should be flexible. For more than a decade, Federal policyas ex-pressed through title VII legislation, title VII funding decisions, OCR implementa-tion of the Lau remedies, and the August 5 notice of proposed rulemakinghas ernphasized transitional bilingual education to the virtual exclusion of alternativemethods of instruction. We found through our analysis that this policy is not justi-fied on the basis of educational effectiveness. While transitional bilingual educationhas been found to work in some setting, it has also been found ineffective and evenharmful in other places. Furthermore, both of the major alternatives to transitionalbilingual educationstructured immersion and English as a second languagehavebeen found to work in some settings
Madam Chairman, the message of the Baker/de Kanter report issimple. Schools can do a lot to help children who do not speak Eng-lish, but transitional bilingual education is not the only way theycan do it. Transitional bilingual education is one of several ap-proaches that schools could use.
Madam Chairman, our conclusions are not unique. Other re-searchers agree with our conclusions. We would like to share withyou the conclusions reached by other researchers:
Despite the continued and widespread support for conducting instruction in thevernacular or mother tongue, there is little evidence that this approach is more effi-cient than conducting instruction in a second language.
Another researcher found:Indeed, because of the different needs of different children, it now seems clear
that there is no single model of bilingual instruction that is the most effective.
Yet another scholar concluded:
114
There is. therefore, no legal necessity or research basis for the Federal Govern-ment to advocate or require a specific educational approach.
In 1975, Engle found the research literature did not confirm thesupposed superiority of instruction in the native language.
A recent meta-analysis of over 1,000 evaluations of bilingual edu-cation programs was inconclusive about the effects of transitionalbilingual education.
At the request of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, two staffmembers of the Ethnic Minority Affairs Office of the AmericanPsychological Association wrote a letter of comment on our report.Nowhere does their letter disagree with our conclusions. In fact, inthe backup materials summarized by the letter, one commentorstates:
My recommendations about legislation agrees with that made by the authors oftne review. I agree that "too little is known" to recommend any single approach tobilingual education, and this also means the Government should not recommend ex-clusive adoption of the transitional bilingual education approach.
Another commentor stated:It is essentially correct to conclude that the 1980 proposed rules which would re-
quire transitional bilingual education are overly restrictive, since there is no onemost suitable educational approach which can adequately meet the needs of mostlinguistic minority children.
None of the APA reviewers disagreed with our conclusions. Theletter to the Hispanic Caucus did not report these facts.
Dr. Richard Tucker, director of the Center for Applied Linguis-tics has concluded:
The center does not, however, believe it is appropriate or useful to prescribe onlyone educational option for all youngsters. The important point is that the localschool system, working together with teachers and parents, who must be given anactive voice in educational decisions, to be able, in our view, to develop educationalprograms to meet the needs of a rapidly changing student body.
Madam Chairman, our conclusions are not unique. The facts onwhich we based our conclusions have been available in the re-search literature for almost a decade. The only thing unique aboutour report is that people are finally paying attention to what hasbeen indicated in the research literature since 1975.
Because our report was written as policy advice for the Depart-ment of Education addressing a specific issuethe proposed man-dating of transitional bilingual education--our report focused ontransitional bilingual education. It is easy to take parts of our dis-cussion out of context and misrepresent the report for that reason.It is essential in discussing the report that the discussion be keptwithin the confines of the policy issue addressed by the report. Thereport does not conclude that bilingual education has no value. Theconclusions of the report is that since bilingual education some-times fails and alternatives sometimes work, mandating transition-al bilingual education cannot be justified on grounds of educationaleffectiveness.
Madam Chairman, there is another finding in our report thathas received far too little attention. We found that bilingual educa-tion programs led to three different outcomes. Some helped chil-dren. Of that there is no doubt. Some have no effect, but othershave a negative effect on childrens' learning. Madam Chairman,we hope no one would support those bilingual education programs
115
that harm children. The highest priority should be given to identi-fying harmful practices and to correcting those harmful bilingualeducation programs.
Madam Chairman, that concludes our testimony. We would liketo leave a copy of our complete testimony and the article from theAmerican Education that goes into our report in more detail.
Mrs. HALL Thank you very much.Our next witness is from the First Congressional District of Indi-
ana, my former boss, the person who really taught me how to be aclassroom teacher, the former State legislator who served in twodifferent county offices for a total of 16 years, a former professor atCounty Mid College, and now the assistant superintendent of theEast Chicago Public School System, Dr. Jose Arredondo.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSE ARREDONDO. EAST CHICAGO SCHOOLSYSTEM
Dr. ARREDONDO. Thank you for inviting me to be here this after-noon to say a few words on behalf of bilingual education. Over thepast 15 years you have heard a tremendous amount of controversyin statements made about bilingual education, and perhaps in thelast 6 months other than computers coming into the classrooms, orsome staggering comment from the National Commission on Excel-lence in Education, there is probably no other subject that has re-ceived so much attention as bilingual education.
As I said, many of these comments have brought back very fondmemories, and I recall that back 21 years ago on October 2, 1962,as a young teacher in the Gary School System, I sat in my livingroom with the principal of the school, some parents and teachersthat came to see me because they couldn't figure out how to helpHispanic children that couldn't speak or understand the Englishlanguage.
It was this particular meeting and several others after that thatled to the funded bilingual program in the Gary School Systemwhich was used as the model for East Chicago, Ind. and other Mid-western cities, as well as my dissertation entitled "Historical De-velopment of the Bilingual Program in the Northern Urban Soci-ety," which was published in 1973 at Indiana University.
I was very, very interested to hear that my colleagues next to mehere mentioned Lyndon Johnson. I believe it was the Lyndon John-son School, because it was Lyndon Johnson who, on January 2,1968, when he signed the bilingual act into law stated that this lawreally means that we are now giving every child of America abetter chance and opportunity to reach and touch his outer mostlimits, to reach the farthest edge of his talents and his dreams. Wehave begun a campaign to unlock the full potential of every boyand girl, regardless of his race, his religion or his father's income.
Let me say to you there is no doubt in my mind, hexing writtenthis 10 years ago, having participated in the development of theprogram 21 years ago, 1962, with people that didn't know what bi-lingual education was because the act wasn't signed until 1968. Itis shocking to me that I hear all these comments and criticisms ofbilingual education, but not one individual has presented any testi-
120
116
mony on what measuring, educational academic instruments wereused to reach their conclusions.
Dr. Gordon Andrew, superintendent of schools in the GarySchool System, on July 4, 1971, at a meeting of the Select Commit-tee on Equal Education Opportunity of the U.S. Senate stated:
The first year we were funded at a level of 3100.000 to which we added S50.000 inthe second year. We will receive beginning September approximately 3120.000, towhich we will add another $50.000. That enrolls about :100.000 bilingual children. 95percent of whom are Spanish origin The preliminary data on the progress of thesechildren which was just received last week is extremely encouraging. and is prob-ably the most significant in terms of progress of children that we have had fromany single program in our educational system.
Again. on September 19, 1972, and I'm quoting from my disserta-tion:
It's in his opening remark to the faculty of the Gary School System. Dr McAn-drew stated that the average IQ of over 200 pre-school and kindergarten children inour bilingual program started 2 years ago, it has increased 20 points in the lastschool year alone.
The bilingual enrolling 350 Hispanic students, has been centeredinto elementary schools, and it's entering its fourth year. The chil-dren who begin as preschoolers now going into the second gradeperforming on or at least grade level in both English and Hispaniclanguage. This, too, has not happened before. The data has shownthat previously these children have always been below grade level.Early school success is essential if a child is to make a happy ad-justmr nt to school learning and is to develop a normal personality.That was in September 1972.
On October 9, 1973, 10 years ago, Ms. Katherine Hughes, the di-rector of bilingual education presented a 45-page report from theGary school board, 37 pages of all data and statistics and measur-ing instruments which were used to arrive at her conclusions,
which were that children of the Gary School System in the bilin-gual education program were all reading better and learning more.
The testing materials that we used, and I'm not ashamed becauseI have not heard anybody else list any test instruments used intheir progra=m. were the Beery visual motor inventory test, theCalwell preschool inventory test, the Goodenough Harris drawingtest, the metropolitan achievement test, the metropolitan readinesstest, the Peabody test of American guide service, the pupil behaviorinventory test from Campus Publishers, the Torrance test, and theWepman auditory discrimination test of language research asso-ciates. That was in 1973.
In 1972, East Chicago School System received their grant fromthe Federal Government, chapter VII to establish their bilingualprogram, a model and copy after the Gary school program.
Since 1975, the school system has been funding their own bilin-gual program. For the past 8 years we have paid for our own bilin-gual program. We started out with 6 teachers and 125 students.Today we have 950 students and 25 teachers. It is all done on a vol-untary basis. We do not put anybody in the program unless theirparents consent to have them come into the program.
Of the 950 students, 10 are black, and 10 are Anglo, and I haveour latest statistics here from 1982. We used the Stanford achieve-ment test to test all of these children in English, Spanish, and also
121
117
in reading and math. In every grade level, from the first grade tothe sixth grade, we have 15 sections of bilingual education in kin-dergarten, and 5 from first to eighth grade. In testing of sixth grad-ers we found that every bilingual student in the program, theirscores were above the national norm in reading and arithmetic,and in English proficiency, they were above the national normwhich was 6.8. We arrived at 7.4, and also the statistics as far asSpanish proficiency was 6.8, and our kids tested at 6.1.
The Federal Government does not pay for our bilingual program,but the city of East Chicago as well as the school administration,because 54 percent of the school system is Hispanic, have developedand implemented what I would call one of the most unique andoutstanding bilingual programs in the country. It goes back to theold saying, a program is only going to be as good as the people in-volved in the program. You cannot develop a haphazard programand expect it to be outstanding, or to provide results.
There were some statements made earlier about certain amend-ments to the bilingual program, and a statement was read that weshould give the funding over to other school systems and let themdecide what is best for the children in the school systems. That isone of our problems, because there are too many school boards,there are too many school systems, there are too many administra-tors, and there are too many teachers who are insensitive to thelinguistic, cultural, and academic needs of the children they aresupposed to be serving. If you don't believe me, turn to the nationalstatistics on the National Commission on Excellence in Education.
I think as an educator it is staggering to me when I read in thenewspaper that 23 million adults are functional illiterates; 13 percent of 17-yearolds are functional illiterates; 40 percent of minor-ity youth are functional illiterates. High school students scorelower on standard high school tests than 26 years ago. Scholastictest scores fell more than 50 points from 1963 to 1980.
You know as well as I do, those involved in education, that edu-cation begins at birth and continues all through our lives, and Ihave never met any young boy or girl who came to school labeled afailure. If he failed, he failed in school because of the school.
Children come to school highly receptive to learn, and the firstyears of school are critical for success or failure, and you know as Iknow that the age from 5 to 10 are the most critical years, and todeny him the opportunity to develop English, to be able to read, tounderstand, speak.
What have we heard all morning? Statistics on the demographicson Hispanics in this country. Only on September 4, a week ago,Parade special magazine edition, the Intelligence Report by LloydShearer, you heard it this morning, in 1980 nearly 90 percent ofthe U.S. Hispanics are going to be in metropolitan areas. Youheard statistics like 14.6 million Hispanics all over this country,and people are talking about 2020, they are going to be the largestminority group in the country; and we are talking abort cuttingfunding?
Yesterday I sat in my room and I happened to pick up the localnewspaper. You know, and I know, that everybody is talking aboutcomputers in schcal. Here is an article in a local newspaper thattalks about computers. It says computers will give poor kids new
122
118
handicaps. The kids that know how to use computers will have anedge over those who don't. This means unless conscious steps aretaken, white middle class children will start out once more with anedge that the less affluent are going to lack.
The problems about this availability of computers, about howthey intend to be used. It commented on the illegal draw and prac-tice that intends to be done in poor schools as opposed to programwriting and problem solving in more affluent schools. The Univer-sity of California said one group tells the computer what to do. Theother sees it as a taskmaster and the group that has the power toget ahead.
If you can't learn to read and write, how are you going to talk toa computer? Who do you think the less affluent individuals aregoing to be? How many Hispanics do you think are going to be ableto afford a computer in the house?
We should be talking about funding bilingual education andother programs that may be helpful, not cutting back. Don't put usthe 20 years behind that we have been. We are not asking for ahead start. We are asking for an equal start. Thank you.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you. Our last witness is Mr. Amalio Maduenoof MALDEF.
STATEMENT OF AMALIO MADUENO, LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT,MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Mr. MADUENO. Thank you very much.Madam Chairman, I am legislative consultant to the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. MALDEF is a na-tional civil rights organization dedicated to preserving the civil andconstitutional rights of persons of Mexican and Hispanic descent.We have offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, San Anto-nio, Chicago, and here in Washington, D.C.
Over the last 15 years issues concerning bilingual education andequity in education have been of prime importance to MALDEF be-cause of their impact on our Hispanic population. I welcome the in-vitation to continue that dialog today. Bilingual education was cre-ated in response to a history of discrimination and neglect towardlanguage minority students in our public schools. It is designed toteach English to students with limited English proficiency, LEP,and while they learn English, to maintain their progress in otheracademic areas.
Educators have known for many years that language minoritychildren have difficulty succeeding in English monolingual schools.As early as 1930 it was documented that, in Texas, overageness anddropout rates were higher for Mexican American children than foreither black or white students, and that most Mexican Americanchildren never progressed beyond the third grade. In addition,while approximately 95 percent of Anglo children were enrolled inschools, only 50 percent of' Mexican American children were. Thecauses were considered at the time to include lack of' English lan-guage knowledge, low socioeconomic status, and innacurate meas-uring instruments.
Today we know better. We know that the method of' instructionand the type of instruction is a major element in adverse education
-123
119
statistics, and that such statistics can be mitigated by effectivemeans of teaching LEP children English while they are in school.
Some scattered attempts were made to improve the education ofMexican American children from 1920 to 1940. In 1946, recommen-dations were made to end segregated schools for Spanish-speakingchildren, improve teacher training, and improve efficiency inteaching English in Texas schools.
However, public education continued to neglect the needs of lan-guage minority students. In 1970 HEW issued its first directive onthe subject of bilingual education. It required federally fundedschool districts to provide assistance for LEP children. That direc-tive indicated that failure to provide such assistance, whereneeded, would be considered a violation of title VI of the CivilRights Act.
From 1971 to 1974, the U.S. Ccrimission on Civil Rights conduct-ed a study of Mexican American students in public schools. It re-vealed that problems of segregation, teacher training, and languagedifficulty were still severe for Mexican American students in thefive Southwestern States. Other Commission studies documentedthe continuing failure of public schools to provide Puerto Ricans,native Americans, and Asian Americans with meaningful educa-tion.
I am going over this history to remind the committee that wehave come a long way in 12 years, and legislation for bilingual edu-cation has served to help hundreds of thousands of children. Weare all familiar with the Lau v. Nichols decision by the SupremeCourt.
In Lau v. Nichols the Supreme Court affirmed the HEW inter-pretation of the scope of title VI stating:
Under these State-imposed standards there is no equality of treatment merely byproviding students with the same facilities, text books, teachers, and curriculum; forstudents who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any mean-ingful education.
is English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Impo-sition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the educa-tional program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mock-ery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are cer-tain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no waymeaningful.
It seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receives less benefits thanthe English-speaking majority from respondents' school system which denies them ameaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program.
There is a tremendous need for bilingual education in this coun-try. Hard socioeconomic realities face most Hispanic children whocomprise the majority of those desperately in need of bilingual edu-cation. We are enrolled in primary and secondary schools at lowerrates than nonminorities. We also have higher dropout rates fromhigh school. Fully 85 percent of us live in households where Span-ish is the sole language.
The median income of our families is more than $5,000 below thenational average for families of non-Hispanic origin, $12,600. Ourfamilies are more concentrated in urban areas than are non-Span-ish families-85 percent of us live in cities as compared to 66 per-cent of other families in the United States. Our families averagefour members-50 percent of our families have more than four per-
120
sonswhere non-Hispanic families average three members. We area young population; 1 of every 8 of us is under 5 years old as com-pared with 1 of 14 non-Hispanics. Our median age is 22 comparedwith 30 years for the total population. As workers we are industri-ous and energetic, yet we account for a disproportionate share ofU.S. unemployment-40 to 50 percent more than the overall unem-ployment rate. We also are concentrated in low-pay, low-skill jobs.
These crucial realities contribute to and are aggravated by theproblem our schoolchildren have with access to equal educationalopportunity and appropriate instruction. the 3.5 million elemen-tary and secondary schoolchildren with limited English proficiency,80 percent are Hispanic. That means there are at least 2.8 millionHispanic children alone with LEP problems which hamper theirability to achieve in school. This is not to mention the AmericanIndians, Vietnamese, Chinese, and other ethnic minorities. Thecurrent bilingual education programs serve only 213,000 childrena dismal 6 percent of the children who really need the service. Thismeans that 94 of every 100 LEP students cannot function adequate-ly in an English-speaking classroom. Another concern, of course, isevaluation of bilingual education effectiveness. Our interest is inimproving the quality of evaluation techniques so that we canbetter know and define the effectiveness of bilingual education pro-grams. The Baker/de Kanter report concerns us as an evaluation,because its conclusions are being used to officially justify fundingcuts and limitations to a program that needs development and in-creased funding. Members of Congress opposing bilingual educationhave cited the report as showing that bilingual education programsare not working.
All of us agree with Drs. Baker and de Kanter, that the report isinappropriately interpreted. It does not support the interpretationthat bilingual education is ineffective or not needed. At best itclaims there is insufficient evidence to conclude one form of bilin-gual education is superior to other forms. It diverts attention fromthe fundamental policy issues that must be considered by Congress,such as the civil rights of language minority children, programflexibility, and the avoidance of unnecessary intrusion into localeducation affairs.
Our objection to the Baker/de Kanter report can be summarizedin four areas. Our objection to the utility of a review of literatureapproach to the evaluation of bilingual education programs, the va-lidity of the program categories cited by the study, the limitation ofthe number of studies used in the report-28 out of 300and thenarrowness of the evaluation goals.
The limits of the report have helped focus attention on whatneeds to be done. The problems inherent in the Baker/de Kanterreport reflect the need for better research in the area of bilingualeducation. We have several recommendations. First, to fund anddevelop a basic methodological approach to the conduct and evalua-tion of bilingual education. We must develop models for each typeof bilingual approach.
Second, we must fund and conduct research into the process ofbilingual learning. I am sure the National Institute of Educationwould be very interested in funding such reports. We must conducthigher quality evaluations.
125
121
The Bilingual Education Act was designed to provide access toeducation for LEP children. It should be allowed to do the job it isdesigned to doestablish bilingual education programs in primaryand secondary schools which need them, establish training pro-grams for bilingual education personnel, develop and distribute bi-lingual education instruction materials, and coordinate bilingualeducation programs. The Bilingual Education .Act is achievingthese goals. States enacting laws to establish bilingual educationprograms have increased in number. In 1976 there were 16 Stateswith bilingual education program laws, in 1977 there were 40, andin 1980 there were 46. Bilingual programs are showing definite suc-cess. It has taken 12 years to put bilingual education programs inplace and operating. We cannot stand by and let the administra-tion's proposed fund cutting and program alterations as presentedin the so-called Bilingual Education Improvements Act, H.R. 2682destroy the steady progress we have made toward dealing with thisgrowing problem. It will be a tragedy for the millions of childrenneeding access and achievement in education to live a normal anddignified life in the United States.
Though the situation is improving, there are tremendous prob-lems to overcome. Implementation is one of them. Only 50 percentof the school districts applying for bilingual education grants havebeen awarded funds. In fiscal year 1982, administration cuts re-duced grants by 20 percent and reduced service to LEP children.Though Congress was able to retain $138 million for fiscal year1983, the administration sought to cut funding to the preposterouslevel of $94.5 million, and is still seeking to do so in the proposalnow before us. In order to serve the millions of LEP children des-perately needing bilingual education programing, we must raisethe level of implementation and funding.
Opponents would have us believe that the Nation is threatenedby bilingual education, that the English language is threatened,that there is something sinister and underhanded about its imple-mentation. They would prefer that we forget the 1964 Civil RightsAct and HEW's interpretation of it to mean that school systemsare responsible for assuring that students of a particular race,color, or national origin are not denied the opportunity to obtainthe education generally obtained by other students in the system.Bilingual education is nothing more than teaching children in alanguage they understand until they have learned English suffi-ciently well to participate in English language classrooms. It tar-gets and services those children who have historically been deniedthis very fundamental right to educational opportunity. At theheart of bilingual education is intensive English language instruc-tion. Bilingual education is designed to teach students English andto teach them some math, basic reading, and writing while theylearn English. Is it not more prudent to educate students in anunderstandable language than to have them sit idle 4 to 6 hours aday in English-only classrooms?
The Supreme Court recognized that it makes a mockery of publiceducation to place children in all-English classrooms if they do notunderstand the language. "We know that those who do not under-stand English are certain to find their classroom experienceswholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful." In its opinion
t :"126
122
on Lau v. Nichols. the 1974 case involving the failure of a localschool district to provide compensatory language instruction fornon-English-speaking Chinese students, the Supreme Court ruledthat such a failure is a violation of title VI of the 1964 Civil RightsAct, the Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, and the EqualProtection Clause of the Constitution.
Opponents have not backed up their allegations of the inadequa-cy of bilingual education with evidence. But bilingual education isstrongly supported by many well-known linguists and educatorswho have done extensive study on second language acquisition.Critics are referred to the numerous articles and books on secondlanguage acquisition by Dr. Steven Krashen, professor of linguis-tics, University of Southern California [USC]. Dr. Krashen, as wellas other highly respected linguists and educators, among them Dr.James Cummins and Dr. Courtney Cazden from the HarvardSchool of Education, have concluded after careful study that chil-dren can learn English and are not retarded in their educationaldevelopment by the provision of bilingual education. Commonsensedictates that you can't learn if you don't understand. Bilingual edu-cation prescribes only the medium of instruction.
The myth promoted by bilingual education's opponentsthatnon-English speakers don't want to learn Englishis a false andmisleading tactic that misguides those who are concerned aboutsolving the learning problems of millions of LEP children. The ad-ministration's support for the Erlenborn bill is evidence of a greatlack of concern for those millions of children not served by any bi-lingual education program and for the hundred of thousands whostand to lose those services if such a bill is passed.
Today we are faced with the opportunity to improve and perfecta law that benefits LEP children. In effect it is an opportunity toimprove and perfect our future. The children we neglect and dis-courage today with inadequate education will become the problemsof tomorrow. The children we nourish and cultivate today withgood education will become the answers to our problems. Congressmust hold firm to the conviction embodied in the Bilingual Educa-tion Act that all children are entitled to equity in education. Wehave the opportunity to refine, improve, and enhance our bilingualeducation programs. We must take that opportunity now. Wecannot afford to allow another generation of LEP students to sufferthe injustice of discrimination in their education.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much.At this time we wish to introduce to you another Member of the
Congress who has joined us, the Honorable Mickey Leland ofTexas.
At this time I d want to thank all of our panel members forvery good information. We have a lot of questions. Obviously timewill not allow us to ask all of the questions that we would like toask.
I would like to just reecho the statements that many of you madetoday, that is there is no amount of money that we could say is toomuch for the quality of education. I am a person who has workedin the public school system and I know that when we spend moneyon public education, we are really investing in our future. There isno substitute for an intelligent society, and of course bilingual edu-
127....
123
cation is a very important part of public education in this country.I am one who supports education for all the people, 100 percent.
I would like to ask a question of Dr. Lopez and then yield to mycolleagues. I was fascinated by your report obviously. What type ofinservice projects do you have to prepare your staff before imple-menting this kind of program? It sounds like a fantastic thing, andI know that it's good because of your staff, its cooperation, and allthe people involved. How much do you spend in teacher prepara-tion, and how much have you spent on service? Just what goes intopreparing the staff for this kind of program?
Dr. LOPEZ. I wish I could answer the question with some specif-ics, but allow me to generalize how we are approaching it now atthe very start of the school year based on what we learned the last2 years.
The genesis of this book which synthesizes the research over thelast 15 years was not by accident. I motivated the staff if we weregoing to provide technical assistance throughout our state to say,hey, if we are going to provide technical assistance, what does theresearchers and others say ought to be the components of bilingualeducation. Don't call it bilingual education because a fundingsource of those moneys is attached to it.
After considerable research, we found out there were at least fivecomponents that everybody set out to be there, our primary lan-guage component and use, a well defined English acquisition com-ponent, a teacher who could communicate and make oneself under-stood, a constant yearning on the part of the staff to understandwhy and not just to do it mechanically was the fourth, and thefifth is parental involvement.
After a few years of doing that, there were a number of ques-tions that we could not answer, and people kept asking more so-phisticated questions, and it was the categorizing of those questionsthat led us to commission these papers. We asked the people whowere contributing to those categories in those issues to make sug-gestions. This does it. What we now use is a digest of that whichhas the basic principles.
For example, 3 or 4 weeks ago working with Los Angeles City,we started to develop what we call multiteacher training, and weare starting with about eight cohorts of about 35 teachers each. Weare starting another series in San Bernadino, Riverside, andthroughout our State.
The first that we want the staff to do is make sure that all of theparticipants understand the research and question the synthesisand not just do it mechanically.
Then there is the time to develop material and to review whatthey were doing in view of the basic principles, and the researchand what it says, and to make corrections. There is another compo-nent whereby they go back into the classroom and see if they canchange their performance, develop the materials in view of the un-derstanding and exchange.
Then there is a final component in our general training modelwhere those who are doing the training now monitor whether infact there are changes in the performance. This is just one modelthat we feel very comfortable with, and it's all based on our workon successes. Of course it has the trainer-teacher effect spinoff. We
12 8
124
are having great success with our teacher training institutions, es-pecially those institutions that are in receipt of the SEA titles.
We are having great cooperation from the bilingual educationsupport centers, soon to be called multifunctional centers. There isa steam rolling effect, and there is a lot of people helping us. Thereis a lot of people involved, and we try not to keep control over it,but to participate and encourage people to understand the basis. IfI were to put a dollar figure on that, I just don't think I could. Werequest the participating teachers in those school districts. This isnot done overnight. It takes at least 4 to 6 months, and some ofthose training units are into their second year of trying to furtherunderstand the complexities that the language minority child facesin schooling.
So we are going way beyond in our State. We are trying to do itaccording to the best empirical data. It's a tremendously challeng-ing training model, and there's a lot of variations of it. There's alot of agencies at all levels helping us with this. It is exciting to bepart of it. I couldn't put a dollar sign on it.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much. At this time I would like toyield to my colleague from Texas, Congressman Leland.
Mr. LELAND. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. Let mefirst apologize for having come late. As you know, our scheduledoes just not jibe with being everywhere at the same time.
I just want to say I especially appreciate this opportunity ofbeing a member of this subcommittee and what it represents, par-ticularly in the speciality of the Hispanic Congressional Caucusholding its week-long events, highlighting the issues than confrontAmerica with problems that should have been solved years ago.
I am reminded, as I've heard all of the speakers on this panelspeak on behalf of bilingual eduation, of my friend who is a citycouncilman, Ben Reyes in Houston. Once I asked him if he wouldstop calling this Anglo guy by a wrong pronunciation, and he said"When he stops calling me Ben Rees, I will stop calling him by awrong name." I take a special pride in participating in this hearingand in the further struggle to try to heighten the interest of doingwhat we can for bilingual education. I am, too, reminded of whenwe were fighting for the Voting Rights Act, and Mr. McClury triedto enter an amendment to theI m sorry, to the Voting RightsActthat would delete the bilingual provision. In a feeble attemptto illustrate to the Congress what it meant to not only HispanicAmericans, but also to Americans who were language Americans,but Americans who didn't necessarily speak English proficiently orunderstand how to read English. I spoke in Spanish. What I saidessentially, and I will speak in English because I can do it better.Unfortunately I was not afforded a bilingual education and, there-fore, I am not proficient in Spanish. I spoke in Spanish, and what Isaid was, "I choose to speak Spanish now because I want to illus-trate there are thousands upon thousands of American citizenswho cannot understand English. And if you are in an earshot ofwhat I am saying and don't understand, then you should trulyknow that we are crippling a lot of people by not providing themthe tools of being participating citizens of our country."
I had to interpret obviously for my colleagues. And fortunatelythey heard the cry. It was not just from what I was saying, but
1'29
125
rather from what the Hispanic Congressional Caucus was sayingand those of us who cared, that what we were saying was to givethe Hispanic people of this country, give the Asian Americanpeople and the native American people of this country an opportu-nity to participate. The way we do that is to provide for tools thatthey can use to be equal participating partners in this America.They deserve it not necessarily because of some struggle that wehave made on their behalf, or the struggles that they have madeon their own behalf, but rather because they are American citi-zens. It's time now that we expect that.
I have fought this fight now for almost 11 years, since I was inthe State legislature. I am especially proud to hear what you havesaid. I hope that the Members of Congress who we appeal to, ourcolleagues, will continue to hear. They gave me a standing ovationI might add that night. I was specially proud. It was about theproudest moment I've had in the U.S. Congress, and I was proudbecause even though I was not that proficient in speaking Spanish,they understood what I was saying. I think we got about five votesagainst us on that particular amendment. The next day I used thatin my campaign, not in the Hispanic community, but in the blackcommunity and the white community or whatever. The Washing-ton Post said that Mickey Leland took the wind out of the sails ofthe opposition to the bilingual provision in the Voting Rights Act.So I am proud to be participating in that struggle with you to tryto establish bilingual education as a monument, to be that whichall citizens in this country can truly be participating citizens.Madam Chair, I thank you for holding this kind of hearing.
Mrs. HALL. At this time the Chair yields to the gentleman frcmCalifornia, Congressman Martinez.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I am concerned with the kinds of amendmentsthat are being offered to this program. There is constantly a chal-lenge to the status quo, as some people mistakenly thought therewas in the Baker/de Kanter report, because those who are con-cerned want to be certain that the tax dollars spent on bilingualeducation are being spent efficiently.
Normally a challenge comes up because we don't have an estab-lished model program for bilingual eduation. The reason I am look-ing at you, Dr. Arredondo, is because it seems like you have inyour home base a very successful program. It sounds like in Cali-fornia they are going to come up with the same thing.
I am wondering have either of you ever talked about your respec-tive programs?
Dr. ARREDONDO. I have never seen him until today.Mr. MARTINEZ. I make the challenge that too many times the
Government enacts a program, but never monitors it to see howsuccessful it is. Subsequently, they hire consultants to do a study.As you stated, they don't look at the right things. They don't askthe right questions, and how are they going to get the right an-swers if they don't ask the right questions? The right questions inthis case are just what you stated: How successful has any programreally been in terms of what it's supposed to accomplish, gettingpeople up to a minimum reading level, or even surpassing thatreading level, or how' much they can accomplish from what theylearn from those classes. There are ways to measure it.
13t)26-464 0-83-9
126
In regard to the reports, and this is not a derogatory statement,you made no reference to the kind of measurements used in yourstudy. It's because you were given mandates of what you 'shouldfind out. I think that sometimes, in a responsible way, we shouldgo beyond what the mandate says, because in order to get a trueanswer to that mandated question you have to ask other questionsand go a little further.
What I am wondering is if your program has been so successfuland you seem to have so many measurements, why hasn't anybody,let's say in Congress, asked for that information, or had youpresent that information?
Dr. ARREDONDO. I will be more than happy to.Mr. MARTINEZ. I think the committee should have this informa-
tion when questions are asked as to how successful a program is.When we are challenged as to the success of a bilingual educationprogram, whether its necessary or not, it is important that thoseof us who support it can answer with factual information.
Dr. ARREDONDO. In all of our educational systems, the first,second, and third is taught by one Hispanic teacher and one non-Hispanic. All the others are taught by a Hispanic individual who iscertified in elementary education with an endorsement in bilingualeduation.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I think it has to be pointed out that you havedone this on a voluntary basis and without Federal assistance. Justthink what Federal assistance could do for a lot of districts that arelacking in funds.
Dr. ARREDONDO. We are open for discussion.Mr. MARTINEZ. There are a lot of people, administrators as well
as teachers, that are not sensitive to the needs of those with thatpeculiar problem, the language barrier. I think that is somethingthat only a mandated program can overcome. I really enjoyed yourtestimony and I would like to talk to you further on it.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you. At this time I wish to yield to the gentle-man from Puerto Rico, Congressman Corrada.
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you very much. I would also like to add myword of congratulations to all of you for your excellent presenta-tion today. May I say as far as the information to be derived bythis subcommittee, the information provided by you today will behelpful to me as a member of the House Education and Labor Com-mittee, and specifically the Subcommittee on Elementary, Second-ary, and Vocational Education. It is the subcommittee that has ju-risdiction on the question of reauthorization of the bilingual edua-tion program, an issue that we are currently facing through publichearings. I hope alsosome of you have already testified in thosehearings. I hope those who have not testified yet will have that op-portunity very soon.
Basically the situation we are facing now is concerning educa-tional, pedagogical and sociological questions pertaining to it, andthat there is a proposal by this administration that the bilingualeducation should be reauthorized by making certain changes to it.Three of the changes are as follows: First, a 5-year cap on fundingto each school district, regardless of whether a need exists in thatdistrict. Second, the elimination of the requirement of native lan-guage instruction. Third, and there is much feeling about this one
131 :
127
causing the fiscal year 1984 funding for title VII to fall from $139to $94 million. That is reduced by $45 million. Of course, some maydisagree about methods. I don't think there is much disagreementabout what the intentions may be when you are proposing that aprogram should be cut by $45 million from a very modest $139 mil-lion, when there is a growing eligible population and, second, tre-mendous demographic shifts, which will continue. No matter whatpolicy is enacted here in these halls, people are there. The con-straints of those who provide services are real. As the gentlemanhas said before, this is no time to cut. It is time to be sensitive tothe need, the changes in our country, and provide us the opportuni-ty to be equal participants in this Government of ours. It would bedisastrous.
Dr. ZAMORA. Of course I would have to agree with Dr. Lopez thatthe results would indeed be disastrous. I would like to point outthat in my official testimony I commented on this issue, and Ipointed out that we had to be perfectly clear about one thing, thatif we were to eliminate the requirement of native language instruc-tion, we would no longer have a Bilingual Education Act.
Perhaps the thing that concerns me the most about this particu-lar amendment is the reason behind that amendment. Why is thatamendment proposed in the first place? I think that everyone of ushere has been able to tell the successes of bilingual education. Ihave a particular concern, if I might just very briefly share thiswith you. Apparently it seems to me that this particular amend-ment is proposed because transitional bilingual eduation has beenfound in some cases to be harmful. I would like to talk just amoment about education climate.
You have Dr. Arredondo over here who talked about a very posi-tive educational climate. I would like to remind everyone that pro-grams do not fail by themselves, that the success or failure of aprogram does not happen by itself, and that you can never separatethe success or failure of a program from its human element.
If transitional bilingual education has been found in some casesto be harmful, I would like to suggest that then it becomes our re-sponsibility, not to throw it out or not to make the recommenda-tion that we throw out transitional bilingual educationwhich, bythe way has also had many successesbut rather that we investi-gate, and we find out what makes it work. That has been said by anumber of us today. When we find out what makes it work, thenwe can continue to improve and to expand bilingual education withthe ultimate goal in mind always to help the children achievetohelp them become fully productive American citizens.
Mr. CORRADA. We have a vote and we have to respond to it in 15minutes. I am sure the chairman would like to respond to it andclose the hearing at that time.
Dr. Perez, would you like to add a short comment?Dr. PEREZ. I was reading recently about a research that was con-
ducted in terms of attitudes, trying to identify attitudes in terms ofbilingual instruction. It asked the general population whetherpeople felt this wasn't truly an effective mode of disruption for lim-ited efficiency. A majority of the people were non-Hispanics andalso nonlanguage minority people indicated yes, this does makesense as the educational approach.
142
128
However, whether it makes sense or not, there is the reality ofimplementing due to funding and other attitudinal kinds of con-cerns that are out there.
In New York State we have over 100,000 limited English profi-cient students who are being provided services through State fund-ing, and under certain conditions. They are in probably 200 schooldistricts. It has been our experience there is a choice of providingeither bilingual education or transitional bilingualexcuse me,English is a second language under given conditions.
In every ca3e, only where there has been a court order or wherethe Commissior 's regulations mandate that the bilingual educationbe implementes.., chose are the only places where they are being im-plemented. So that although generally our populations agree thatbilingual education really does make sense in terms of implement-ing programs, unless school districts are obligated to do so eitherthrough court orders or through regulations, but most often theywill not go that route, and that is unfortunate, taking away the re-quirement of bilingual or the use of native language from our legis-lation.
Mr. CORRADA. Would either of the two witnesses care to add any-thing?
Dr. ARREDONDO. Just to support what has been said already, andto give you an example. I have a son who is attending a universityand studying telecommunications. He has to take 13 hours of a for-eign language. He was given 4 hours of credit for Spanish, whichhe studied for 4 years.
We have kids who went through school 8 years, with a curricu-lum of English and Spanish, and they went into high school andcontinued the Spanish study and tested out at 12 hours of Spanishgoing into college. That's what makes the difference.
These kids are going to have to take a foreign language in school,and one of the recommendations made was that we strengthen ourforeign language departments. I would guarantee that those kidsthat are traveling through our bilingual program today are goingto become our better bilingual students when they graduate thansome of us who do not speak Spanish at home, or do not send ourkids to study foreign languages in school, or whatever. That is oneexample.
I stated to you earlier 10 of our students are Anglos and 10 ofthem are black. On a voluntary basis, their parents put them intothose programs. You wait and see when they graduate how wellthey are going to be speaking two languages.
Mr. CORRADA. It is my recollection that the Secretary of Educa-tion has not signed off on your report. In view of that, I would liketo know who you represent when you discuss the findings, andwhether this report is considered official Department of Educationpolicy?
Dr. BAKER. The Department of Education, as do most Govern-ment departments, turns out a number of studies of differentthings. Some are done by in-house staff. Some are done under con-tract. Some are done under grant. Our study was done within thattradition. It was a policy analysis of a particular piece of Federalpolicy that we had been asked to analyze by both the Carter WhiteHouse and the then Secretary of Education.
133
129
Following legal action by the State of Texas, the Department ofEducation released a draft of our report on September 25, 1981. InApril 1983, the Department sent us to make a presentation on thefindings of the completed version of the report for the AmericanEducational Research Association.
The July 1983 issue of the Department's official news magazine,American Education, contained another summary of the completedfindings of our report.
Mr. CORRADA. Should I take from that, or conclude from thatthat although formally the Secretary of the Department has notsigned off on the report, in fact, it could be deemed as representingthe official views of the Department?
Dr. BAKER. I don't believe it's in the procedures of the Depart-ment in releasing research reports to the public that the Secretarysigns off on all of them. They are reviewed within different offices,and then released to the public following that review procedure.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much. At this time the committeewishes to thank all of our panels. You have been great. We doregret that we have to rush to the floor and vote. Thank you sovery much. Tomorrow we will resume our hearings at 10 o'clock inthis room. We invite each of you back.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.][The statement which follows was received for the record:]
134
130
Prepared Statement of Raul Yzaguirre, President, National Council of La Rata
I. lUIROCUCIWI
Tho National Council of La Rasa, one of the nation's largest Hispanic
organizations. appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on bilingual
education. It Is impossible to talk about Hispanic Issues without discussing
bilingual-bicultural education; concern about the quality of education. and
support for bilingual education figure prominently In almost any discussion.
The National Council of La Raze, along with the overwhelming majority of
Hispanic Americans, believes that bilingual-bicultural education is a very
effective way to remove educational barriers for limited English proficient
Hispanic children and provide Then with access to the mainstream of American
life.
Over the last few months, one report after another has criticized the
quality of public education in the United States, and the Rational Commission
on Excellence in Education has charged that the quality of education is
"mediocre". For Hispanic children, bower, the quality of public education
Is often much worse than Meedlocre." The fact that Hispanic students are
increasingly concentrated In the large urban school districts hardest hit by
declining school revenues and federal budget cuts makes educational problems
even more difficult to solve. The educational situation is especially
devastating for those Hispanic chi Wen of limited English proficiency.
These are the most undereducated of all American children. Dropout rates for
Hispanics are still far too high; half of Chicano and Puerto Rican youth
never finish high school. Language background is strongly related to high
school completion, and Hispanics with a non-English language background,
whether or not they "usually speak" Spanish, are almost twice as likely as
Whites to drop out of school. The icw number of years of schooling
obviously affects the number of Hispanics who are classified as illiterate,
and has tremendous impact on employment opportunities. Language barriers and
133
131
the absence of programs to bridge Those barriers remain a fcrnldabie Problem.
Thus, bilingual education Is of particular importance far Hispanic children.
Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act -- the Bilingual
Education Act provides the only fedarat funds specifically targeted to
assist bilingual education program, train bilingual teachers, and develop
curricular materials far use with limited English proficient teachers.
Tltio VII, always undarfkmded, has been dralatically cut over the last two
years. Unf.rtunately, state budget deficits have made it impossible Jo:
aost states to make up far this loss In funds. Given the scarcity of Inca:
education resources, and the con:pelting national interest in educating
children of limited English proficiency, federal support for Tine VII Is
more important tool over.
The fact that the current act must be reauthorized In 1934 is of great
Interest to Hispanics. For the last two years. the Nations, Council of La
Rub and many other Hispanic organizations have been examining the existing
Act, exploring possible amendment options to maximize its effectiveness end
Protect its most positive features. NCLR believes that in order far Title
Vi; r serve our motional Interests and the interests of children of limited
English proficiency, the legislation must contain the following features:
Provisions to ensure that understandable Instruction inAllUera matter areas continues to be made available
to the children:
. An emphasis on parent and community involvement:
. Provisions to Increase the nunber of highly qua lifted
bilingual instructional and other school personnel;
A focus on full language learning which moves beyond oral
proficiency to literacy: and
Provisions to comprehensively evaluate the effects of the
funded programs.
l36
A.
182
II. RECOltEUDATIOBS
This is the cornerstone of bilingual education, and I as sure that Its
importance Is well understood by the members of the Subconnitee. American
education does more for monolingual English - speaking children than Just work on
their English-language skills, and progress for LEP students must do the some. In
almost all cases, use of the student's native language is the best way to provide
students with coisprehonsible instruction In other subjects while they are learning
English. Otherwise, by the time they become fluent In English, they may be
several years behind in other subjects. It is vital that the use of the students'
native language remain a central feature of any program funded by Title Vii. !fhon
Congress created the Bilin:ual Education Act, the purpose was broader than only
teaching English, and attempts to portray the program as only a quick-fix
English program do not do justice to either the progran's history or the needs of
LEP children. Full competence In English Is Inportant, but equally important Is
equal access to education, and education entails comprehensible instruction in math,
science, and social studios In addition to English language arts. Districts that,
due to extraordinary situations, cannot offer this Instruction through the
childen's native language, must bring their best resources to bear to find another
way to make this instruction avalaible. The Supreme Court ruling in) ev v. Hirhols
demands no Less. Title VII should fund no program which does not provide for
comprehensible content instruction.
B. Parent an Ca:nullity Invntvenent
All educators know that parent participation Is closely correlated with
student achievement. Parent participation Is also en important measure of program
effectiveness. Before bilingulal education programs, parent participation was all
137
183
A
but impossible for parents of limited English prof icienct (LEP) students. In many
schools, the advent of a bilingual program brings the first school staff able to
Communicate with the parents of LEP children. Prior to the presence of bilingual
staff persons, attempts at communication, where they were made at all, were In a
language Incomprehensible to the parents. Parents wero unable to communicate with
the schools in ev.rzncy situations, let along participate as classrocr.
vol unteers, join parent organizations, a help their children with homework.
Bilingual progrers which have been able to increase parent involvement and provide
bilingual School staff to deal with LEP parents have had a very important effect.
Increasing reaningful parent participation . ust rcmain an important goal of Title
VII progrers. Parent advisory councils, parent education components and training
prograns are important ways to give the community access to the schools. 003 of
the best things to happen at the Off ice of Bilingual Education In the last few
years has been the funding emphasis placed on parent training programs.
Parent participation Is the best form of "local control.* The provisions In
the current law and special emphasis on funding projects to improve parent
participation should be maintained.
C Increasik "irth er of Highly_Qu,lif led Teachers and OtherSchool Personnel
The need to train bilingual school personnel is still with us, despite the
AcMinistration,s contention that we now have enough teachers and can begin to
phase out training progrers. The recent Teachers, language Skills Survey, which
has been used by the Acliinistration to justify training cuts, does indeed
shot that the number of teachers teaching through a non-English language all cr
part of the day has grown over the last few years. Hcwever, the Increased
number of teachers teaching through a non-English language has not kept pace
138
f I
184
with the need for such teachers. It is cannon to find English monolingual
teachers assigned to bilingual classroomsbecause of the lack of qualified
bilingual personnel. Amy of these teachers are on temporary state "waivers"
of state requirements that personnelin bilingual programs be themselves bilingual,
and their districts have certiiiedtheir inability to find and hire bilingual
teachers. So* districts have ;vch a need for bilingual teachers that they
have mounted year-round search efforts. Houston Independent School District
In Texas is one such district, and evenoffers bilingual teachers a higher
salary than non - bilingual teachers in aneffort to recruit sufficient numbers
of bilingual teachers.
However, quantity is not the only Issue here; weneed to look at the
qualifications of those teachers. A closer look reveals that of 55,000 teachers
using a non-English language, 35,000(over 637) have absolutely no special
acadenic qualifications to be using that language. Only 211 of all those teachers
have basic academic qualificationsand can actually use the non-English language
awApetently enough to teach subject matter through the langauge. So according to
that study, what we actually have in terms of teachers with basic qualifications,
are about 12,000 teachers. Even without a calculator, it Is easy to see that
12,000 teachers for 3.6 million LEP children nakes for a terrible pupil-teacher
ratio. There is a trelendous need to improvenot only the numbers but the lulus
of the people teaching LEP children.
133
135
Bilingual SiLUC= teachers also solve only one part of the problem. Other
instructional personnel need to be trained to wank with LEP children. The new
math-science teacher training initiatives should also provide for training
these teachers In the techniques of necessary to teach math and science to LEP
students. A special set-aside in these Initiatives for this type of training
would be an excellent Idea. Other school programs also need to be made available
to LEP children. Without bilingual special education and gifted and talented
teachers, these programs remain inaccessible to limited English prof icient
children. Additionally, there Is a tremendous need to increase the numbers of
bilingual school counselors, psychologists, librarians, nurses, principals and
administrators. Ue have not done the whole job simply by training bilingual
classroom teachers.
D. J Iterary
The problem of Illiteracy in America has been receiving great attention
in the last few years. It Is the special project of Drs. George Bush, and the
President recently announced a series of initiatives to help combat the problem.
Although some figures on Hispanic illiteracy rates may include people who are
literate In Spanish but are limited in their English prof iciency, illiteracy In
Engish Is a serious problem In the Hispanic community. In fact, a study recently
conducted by the University of Texas at Austin suggests that illiteracy rates far
Hispanics may be as high as 56,1. High rates of illiteracy cost Hispanics full
employment and full participation In society. Sadly, educational programs
focusing only on teaching children to speals English may be partly responsible for
the problem. It Is important that we move beyond a definition of English
proficiency which is so heavily based on speaking ability. To be Engish
proficient, to be an English usct, neans being able to understand, speak, read and
write English.
140
136
The absence of good educational programs designed to help children become
proficient language users has caused many children to be illiterate in both
Spanish and English. tfe must insist that any program working with LEP children,
Including bilingual education programs. teach children to read and write.
Children must not be routinely "exited" from special programs as soon as they
speak a few words of English; they have only begun their task. They must be able
to read and write English before they can compete equally with monolingual
children in English-only classrooms. Title VI I-funded programs must be designed to
provide children with that opportunity.
E Comprehonclve Fyn! uAti on
Recent studies have amply demonstrated the sorry state of evaluations on
bilingual programs. One of the best lessons we can learn from the Baker/OeKanter
report Is that we need to substantially Improve efforts to evaluate Title VII
programs. It is important that programs be evaluated in an ongoing and timely
manner so that schools can use the information to modify and Improve their
programs. It Is also important that evaluations be broad-based and reflective of
all the program goals and objectives, not as Is often the case -- on one
arbitrary measure of student's English-speaking prof iciency. Progress toward
meeting both student and instructional goals must be assessed. Finally, these
evaluations should be used not merely to label programs as successes or failures,
but also as tools to improve the program, and Increaseinformation about the kinds
of programs that seem to be effective in different settings.
III. CONCLUSION
During the next few months, as additional hearings are scheduled on
bilingual education and Title VII, Congress will have the opportunity to
protect important features of the Act, and make revisions to Improve the
delivery of bilingual education services to LEP children. The National
Council of La Roza believes that the above f lye features, coupled with an
adequate level of funding, are essential if our nation Is to continue
efforts to Improve educational opportunities for Hispanicchildren of limited
English proficiency.
141
HISPANIC BUSINESS PICTURE
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1983
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION,
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:37 p.m., in room345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Katie Hall presiding.
Mrs. HALL. The House Subcommittee on Population and Censusis called to order at this time. We would like to welcome eachperson here.
I would like to say that this is the second in a series of hearingsthat we will be doing this week, and we certainly do appreciateyour presence and your participation.
I would like to say that the hearings will focus on the Hispanicbusiness sector as it relates to population. With the rapid growth ofthe Hispanic population and demographic shifts, it is very impor-tant that this subcommittee review the nature of the Hispanicbusiness picture.
We have some very interesting panelists with us today who willdiscuss various sectors, and during yesterday's hearing the CensusCommittee heard from a number of very outstanding persons, eachrepresenting various areas of our country, and we got a lot of veryimportant information.
I am somewhat disturbed by the figures that we are getting,things that were given us yesterday as well as other informationthat we have received. Despite the fact that the Hispanic group isperhaps the fastest growing minority, we still find that when itcomes to education, unemployment, and other areas we are so farbehind.
Today we have a very interesting panel of witnesses, and I wouldlike to present them at this time. We have Mr. Heriberto Herrera,Deputy Administrator, Small Business Administration; Mr. JesusChavarria, who is the editor and Publisher of the Hispanic Busi-ness Magazine; Miss Dorita deLemos Down of the American Insti-tute for Transportation and Business Development; Mr. Jose Font,president of the Greater Washington Ibero-American Chamber ofCommerce; Dr. Harry Pachon, executive director, National Associ-ation of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials; and Mr. VictorRivera, Minority Business Development Agency.
At this time it is my pleasure to present to you Mr. VictorRivera of the Minority Business Development Agency.
(137)
14t2tG T
138
STATEMENTS OF VICTOR M. RIVERA, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, MI-NORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. U.S. DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE; HERIBERTO HERRERA, DEPUTY ADMINISTRA-TOR, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; JESUS CHAVARRIA,PUBLISHER /EDITOR OF HISPANIC BUSINESS MAGAZINE;DORITA deLEMOS DOWN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS,AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND BUSINESSDEVELOPMENT; JOSE ANTONIO FONT, PRESIDENT, GREATERWASHINGTON IBERO-AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE;AND HARRY P. PACHON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AS-SOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS
Mr. RIVERA. Thank you.With your permission, I would like to submit my testimony for
the record and just summarize the highlights, which would obvious-ly allow more time for questions and answers.
Mrs. HALL. Very good.Mr. RIVERA. One cannot talk about Hispanic business develop-
ment in a vacuum. One needs to look at the larger picture of mi-nority business development, and even a much larger picture,which is the state of the economy.
I feel very strongly that President Reagan's record on behalf ofminority business development, and Hispanic business developmentin particular, has been quite impressive. Let me cite some exam-ples of why I say that.
As I mentioned earlier, one cannot have Hispanic business devel-opment, black business development, women business development,or anybody's business development unless we have a healthy econo-my. I think that is the strongest contribution the Reagan adminis-tration or any administration can make to an entrepreneurial com-munity, developing a climate conducive to growth.
There have been a number of benchmarks, starting out with thePresident's economic recovery program announced October 1, thatare beginning to bear fruit. Hispanic and other minority businesseswere adversely affected in the recession of the early eighties. Thosebusinesses that went under, many of them failed because of highinterest rates, a high inflation rate, and high unemployment ratesin their community. We are beginning to see that turn around.
The interest payments made by minority business, whether His-panic or any person, in January 1981, if he were to get a $100,000loan, payable over 7 years, he would have had to pay a 24-percentinterest rate. That is an unconscionable amount of money. Thatwas in January 1981, the month the Reagan administration cameinto power. That rate has been cut in half. It is still very high, butif that same Hispanic business person were to go to a bank, hewould pay $700 less per month for that loan. You add that up bythousands or millions of loans, that, to me, is a major contribution.
Again, with the inflation rate going down, the purchasing powergoes up; disposable income is beginning to go up. That helps manyHispanic businesses because their clients are, in the main, His-panics. So the President's economic recovery program is a majorcontributor, and the success of that program is very important toHispanic business development and the trend line is positive.
143'
139
On March 1, 1982, the President announced a small business ini-tiative. This is very important. It's the first time in the history ofthis country that a President made a state-of-small-business report.At that time he reiterated his strong commitment to small busi-ness development. He mentioned eight initiatives, as I said, havingto do with tax incentives, again rewardingthe philosophy is weneed to reward those American entrepreneurs regardless of race ornational origin and encourage them to work, to save, and to invest,because that has been the path for economic as well as social mo-bility in this country. You have to develop a climate, governmentpolicies that will reward the risk takers, that will reward thosewho work, save, and invest.
There were a number of other incentives announced on March 1.They have to do with regulatory relief, paperwork relief. Hispanicand other small business persons are disproportionately burdenedby government regulations and paperwork. The President an-nounced his special emphasis on getting more small businesses in-volved in research and development. Major expenditures are beingspent on research and development and small and minority busi-nesses were not getting their share. This administration is commit-ted to changing that.
The President is committed to a policy of privatization, ofmaking sure that small businesses can assume many of the tasksnow performed by Government. Whether it is security jobs or gar-dening or what have you, let the private sector perform those serv-ices. As a result of those policies, we are beginning to see manysmall, and especially black and Hispanic people, pick up those con-tracts.
I could go on, but there were basically eight initiatives an-nounced then.
On December 17 the President announced a 12-point program toassist minority businesses. For the first time in the history of thiscountry, a President committed himself not only to say we wantmore minority businesses, but we set a quantifiable goal-120,000new and expanded minority businesses over the next 10 years.
It is not enough to say we want Government to give more con-tracts to minorities. The Government set a goal of $15 billion inprocurements over the next 3 years and a target of $6-$7 billion forprocurements by recipients of Federal cooperative agreements andgrants for minority businesses; quantifiable goals.
The President set a goal of $1.5 billion in credit assistance overthe next 3 years, $300 million in management and technical assist-ance. That is extremely important in a period of budget cutting,the fact that certain amounts of money, $300 million, is a commit-ment on the part of this administration to help Hispanic and otherminority businesses.
Very importantly, also the first week in October has been desig-nated "Minority Enterprise Development Week." That is just morethan a symbol as far as I'm concerned, because that allows us theopportunity to raise the level of awareness, the consciousness levelof all Americans, but especially policymakers in the public and pri-vate sector, to the many contributions that Hispanic and other mi-nority businesses are making to their communities and to theNation as a whole.
140
Mrs. HALL. Excuse me, Mr. Rivera. I hate to interrupt you, buttoday the House of Representatives is in session and it means thatthere is always a possibility that members will have to go to thefloor for the purpose of voting. We just got the signal that there isa vote on the floor at this time. We will have to recess briefly togive members time to get over and vote and return.
Before I leave, I would like to introduce my colleague fromTexas, the Honorable Mickey Leland, who is a member of this sub-committee, and, of course, to my left is Mr. Scott Pastrick, who isour staff director.
We will leave you shortly. Mr. Pastrick will be staying with you.As soon as we vote, we will return. We regret that, but that's partof the process.
Mr. &v=4. A. Certainly.Mrs. HALL. I should also remind you that this is a very busy day
on the floor, so there is a great possibility that we will have to do itagain. But we will be back as soon as we vote. Thank you.
We are in recess until the members can vote and return.[Whereupon, the subcommittee was in recess.]Mrs. HALL. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to resume our
hearings. I do apologize for the vote.At this time I should inform you that I have just been advised by
my assistant that members will have to go back to the floor every30 minutes until adjournment today. We have a lot of amendmentson the floor and we have a number of bills. These are very impor-tant to all of us in this country, and we have to make sure we arethere and that the right vote is adopted. So I did want you to knowthat.
At this time I would like to ask Mr. Rivera if he would pleasecontinue.
Mr. RIVERA. Thank you.I started to mention earlier that when we're talking about His-
panic business development much depends on the state of the econ-omy, and if the economy is not doing well, we're not going to seemuch Hispanic business growth or expansion. Then I proceeded totalk about the administration's commitment to Hispanic and mi-nority business development in general, as evidenced by the Presi-dent's statement of December 17, the President's Executive Order12432 of July 14.
I would like to continue by stating also that there has to be com-mitment at the departmental and also the agency level, and I amhere to assure the committee and the audience that my boss, Secre-tary Baldrige, is very much committed to minority business devel-opment.
The President has seen fit to elevate what was formerly policydecisions at the Interagency Council; that has now been elevated tothe Cabinet Council on Commerce and Trade. At our own agency,the Minority Business Development Agency, when I first joined theagency in 1981, out of the top 16 management positions at head-quarters, there was 1 Hispanic. Now of the top 16 there are 6. Thatis important because there has to be involvement of all minoritygroups in terms of establishing policy for minority business devel-opment.
141
I am also pleased to report that for the first time our agency hasnamed a female regional director in New York, and she happens tobe a Hispanic. We are very proud of that appointment.
MBDA has been very active also in developing strong Hispanicbusiness organizations. We recognize that Government obviouslycannot do it alone; we have to develop institutions so that someday, as Government reduces its involvement, that the privatesector can pick up that responsibility. The U.S. Hispanic Chamberof Commerce, the Latin American Manufacturers Association, theNational Council of LaRaza, and many others are just a few ofthose organizations that we are working closely with in makingsure they provide very professional services.
Our agency operates 100 minority business development centers.Approximately 25 of them are operated by Hispanics. We have 15export consulting firms, 7 of those are operated by Hispanics; 3rural assistance programs, 2 of them operated by Hispanics. I thinkin the history of MBDA we have never had as much Hispanic in-volvement in the delivery of services to our clientele.
In closing, we recognize that Hispanics and minorities in generalface two serious problemslack of access to timely informationabout business opportunities, and also lack of access to resourceWe have focused our efforts on closing those gaps and making su,that Hispanics have access to information and resources.
As I mentioned earlier, Madam Chairwoman, I have submittedmy testimony for the record and would be glad to answer any ques-tions that you may have.
[The statement of Victor Rivera follows:]
146,211-464 0-83---10
142
REMARKS BY
VICTOR M. RIVERANational Director
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCYUnited States Department of Commerce
0 PRESIDENT REAGAN'S RECORD ON BEHALF OF HISPANIC AND OTHER
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COUNTRY IS IMPRESSIVE.
THE PRESIDENT VIEWS THE HISPANIC BUSINESS COMMUNITY AS AN
UNDERDEVELOPED, UNDERUTILIZED NATIONAL RESOURCE. BUT, THERE
CAN BE NO MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT ECONOMIC RECOVERY,
0 THERE ARE FOUR MAJOR MAJOR BENCHMARKS DEPICTING THE ADMINISTRATION'S
EFFORTS. ON OCTOBER 1, 1981, THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED THE ECONOMIC
RECOVERY PROGRAM, THE FIRST STEP TOWARD IMPROVING THEECONONIC
CLIMATE FOR HISPANIC AND MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. THE
ECONOMIC RECOVERY PROGRAM PROVIDES INCENTIVES FOR BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT AND CARRIES THE PHILOSOPHY OF REWARDING THE RISK
TAKERS AND THE CHANCE MAKERS. IT IS THIS ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT
THAT HAS MADE THIS COUNTRY A LEADER IN THE GLOBAL MARKET.
0 ON MARCH 1, 1982, THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED AN 8 POINT INITIATIVE
ON THE STATE OF SMALL BUSINESS. THESE INITIATIVES INCLUDED AN
ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMS FACING SMALL BUSINESS, A REDUCTION
OF 1/3 OF THE REGULATIONS FACING SHALL BUSINESS, A 20 PERCENT
1,0
143
PAPERWORK REDUCTION, EXPORT PROMOTION, ANTI-TRUST REGULATION,
CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND THE PROMPT PAYMENT SILL.
THESE INITIATIVES AGAIN CLEARED THE WAY FOR MORE SUCCESSFUL
HISPANIC BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT.
0 ON DECEMBER 17, 1982, THE PRESIDENT MADE A SIGNIFICANT MINORITY
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT. HE ESTABLISHED A GOAL OF 522
BILLION IN FEDERAL CONTRACT AND SUBCONTRACT AWARDS TO MINORITY
BUSINESS OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS.
HE ALSO DIRECTED MIDA AND THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
TO ASSIST IN CREATING 60,000 NEW HISPANIC AND MINORITY BUSINESSES
AND EXPANDING AN ADDITIONAL 60,000 OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS. HE
CALLED FOR ADDITIONAL 6 TO 7 BILLION IN FEDERAL GRANTS AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO BE AWARDED TO MINORITY-OWED FIRMS
OVER THE SAME PERIOD.
PRESIDENT REAGAN ALSO ANNOUNCED THAT APPROXIMATELY $1.5 BILLION
IN CREDIT ASSISTANCE AND $300 MILLION IN MANAGEMENT AND
146
144
TICINICAL ASSISTANCE It MADE AVAILABLE TO PROMOTE BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT DURING TEL SAME THREE YEAR PERIOD.
FEDERAL papaw= THE LAST YEAR OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION
WAS $3.1 BILLION. LAST YEAR, FEDERAL PROCUREMENT TO MINORITY
BUSINESSES WAS $4.4 BILLION. AND, THE GOAL FOR THIS YEAR
IS U.S.
0 U4 HIS STATEMENT, THE PRESIDENT ALSO DESIGNATED NATIONAL
MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT WEE' DURING THE
FIRST MIX IN OCTOBER WHICH WILL FOCUS MU NATIONAL
RECOGNITION TO HISPANIC BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EFFORT AND
TO THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY THE HISPANIC AND MINORITY
COMMUNITY TO OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
0 ON JULY 14, 1983, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN THE HISTORY
OF THIS COUNTRY, THE PRESIDENT SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
REQUIRING ALL FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES TO DEVELOP
MINORITY BUSINESS PLANS. THESE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
4
145
WILL BE GIVEN A REPORT CARD ON NOW THEY HAVE PERFORMED WITH
SPECIFIC MEASURES OF ACCOMPLISHMENT AND WILL i. HELD ACCOUNT-
ABLE. IN ADDITION. THEY WILL DEVELOP INCENTIVE TECHNIQUES
FOR SUBCONTRACTING TO HISPANIC AND MINORITY BUSINESSES.
0 I BELIEVE MAT THERE ARE TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS FACING THE
HISPANIC BUSINESS ENTREPRENEUR. ONE. LACK OF ACCESS TO
INFORMATION AND TWO. LACE OF ACCESS TO RESOURCES. IN OUR
SOCIETY. INFORMATION IS POWER. NM'S NETWORK OF MORE THAN
100 MINORITY BUISNESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS IS ADDRESSING
THESE PROBLEMS.
THIS YEAR. THROUGH THE TURD QUARTER. THE CENTERS HAVE
RESULTED IN OVER 2.000 NEW MINORITY BUSINESSES STARTED.
OVER 1.200 SAVED. AND OVER 2.500 EXPANDED. THE CENTERS
HAVE GENERATED OVER $580 MILLION IN CONTRACT AND SUBCONTRACT
AWARDS TO MINORITY BUSINESSES. AND OVER $140 MILLION IN LOANS
GRANTED TO THESE FIRMS. OF THOSE TOTALS, OUR CENTERS REPORT
THAT 3.795 HISPANIC BUSINESSES HAVE RECEIVED ASSISTANCE
15k)
5
146
RESULTING IN $137.9 MILLION IN BUSINESS FINANCINGS AND
PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS.
0 THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
ACT. AS A RESULT, AN ESTIMATED $70 BILLION WILL BE EXPENDED
TO HELP REBUILD OUR NATION'S HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
0 HISPANIC AND OTHER MINORITY CONTRACTORS WILL HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE FOR AT LEAST $7 BILION AS REQUIRED
UNDER THE ACT. WE, AT !ODA, HOPE THEY ACHIEVE EVER HIGHER.
WE DO NOT VIEW THIS REQUIREMENT AS A "GIVEAWAY" OR SET-ASIDE
PROGRAM FOR MINORITY BUSINESSES. INSTEAD, IT IS MY OPINION
THAT THE $7 BILLION REQUIREMENT WILL HELP TO FACILITATE
HISPANIC CONTRACTORS TO EFFECTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE HIGHWAY
CONSTRUCTION EFFORT.
MBDA HAS BEGUN A SERIES OF TRADE MISSIONS TO BRING MORE OF OUR
HISPANIC BUSINESS MEN AND WOMEN IO TOUCH WITH THEIR COUNTERPARTS
IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN. THE FIRST WAS TO MEXICO,
151
6
147
TEE LARGEST TRADE MISSION IN TVS 'ISTORY OF THE COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT, WHERE MORE THAN FOUR HUNDRED MOSTLY HISPANIC
ENTREPRENEURS WERE INTRODUCED TO MEXICO AND ITS MARKETS.
AND, ANOTHER ONE IS PLANNED FOR THE CARIBBEAN LATER THIS
YEAR.
THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE
GREATEST AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HISPANIC BUSINESS OWNERS.
EXPORTING IS A NATURAL FOR HISPANIC BUSINESS.
IN RECENT YEARS,, INTERNATIONAL TRADE HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY
CENTRAL TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. TODAY, ONE OF EVERY EIGHT
AMERICAN MANUFACTURING JOBS IS RELATED TO EXPORTS. EVERY
BILLION DILLARS IN EXPORTS SUPPORT 25,000 JOBS.
PRESIDENT REAGAN HAS PROPOSED THE CREATIOO OF A NEW CABINET-
LEVEL DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INDUSTRY. THIS
NEW DEPARTMENT WOULD PROVIDE A LEANER, MORE EFFICIENT, BETTER
COORDINATED APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
MBDA'S EXPORT DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION'S
RUSH FOR INCREASED TRADE.
152
148
Minority LtAiness Development Agency
Performance Report
Comparison of Cameulative Third (barter FY 1982 - Third Quarter FY 1983
3rd Qtr 3rd Qtr
Perfonastice Measure FY 1982 FY 1983 % Change
MSTA Clients Assisted 6,422 9,474 + 48%
IISTA Hours Assisted 245,200 346,980 + 42%
New Business Starts 196 404 +106%
Procurements Secured 336 2,609 +676%
Srrocurements Secured $ 63.8 $ 372.8 +484%
(Millions)
Packages Obtained 275 1,002 +264%
$Packages Cbtained $ 23.5 $ 138.3 +489%
(Millions)
15 3
149
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Assistance to the Hispanic Community
The Minority Business Development Agency funds five differentprograms which, in turn, provide general and specializedbusiness management, technical, and financial packaging assistanceto the minority business community. Of the Agency's total-program funding (for FY 1983, $46 million), it can be reasonablystated that approximately one-third, or $15 million, isdirected at serving the Hispanic (business) community.
MBDA's five programs include:
1) The Minority Business Development Centers (MBDCs. - atotal of 100 MBDCs located in 90 SNUB with the highestminority populations (and minority business populations),provide general/specialized business management andtechnical assistance to minority-owned firms andiareprenuers. These centers assist in starting newminority (Hispanic) businesses, assist in saving businessesfrom closing, help minority businesses expand and go intonew lines of business opportunities;
2) Minority Export Development Centers (MEDCs) - a total of15 (due to be reduced in number to 7 in FY '84) locatedin the country's major international trade centers toidentify and help expand the number of minority firmsin the trade business;
3) State and Local Governments (S&Ls) - located in 37 differentstates and cities whose chief mission is to supplementstate and local government minority business developmentprograms and initiatives, primarily in the area ofexpanding state/local/private sector procurement contractingwith minority firms:
4) Technology Commercialization Centers (TCCs) - located in15 cities (due to be reduced to 7 in FY '84) with ahigh degree of high -tech activity, whose primary objectivesare to identify and/or match minority firms with emergingtechnology products end processes, and assist these firmswith full business development of their product or process;
5) Business & Trade Association Development - More than 10of these projects are funded with a primary objectiveof extending support to membership development andorganizational development.
154
Areas where NIDA programs serve primarily the Hispanic population
504thoostorn States
MIDCs MEDCs TCCs S&Ls
California / $1.389.100
San DiegolakersfieldAnaheimRiverside
$405.900$158.300$55.000$459.900
Arizona / $754.900
Phoenix $405.900Tucson $198.900
New Mexico/ 1347,500
Albuquerque $247,500
Texas / $3.615,900
ET Paso $405.900San Antonio S405.000Corpus Christi $233.750Irownsville $247.500McAllen $247,500Laredo $168.300
San Diego $100,000
El Paso $100,000
Phoenix SIS0,000
155
Santa Fe $100,000
1110Cs
Puerto Rico / 11.459.800
MEOCs TCCs $61:
San JuanMayaguezPonce
5693.000$168.300$247,500
San Juan $100,000 San Juan 1150.000 City of San Juan$100,000
156
Hispanic Rosiness and Trade Associations
Latin American Manufacturers' Association $381.000U. S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce $281.500Greater Washington lberoAmerican C of C $150,000
Rural Assistance (minority business) $200,000
Total $1,012,500
157
r)Areas where 81100. programs ttttt a large number of Mistanics of the total minority population
1140Cs MEOCs TCCs
California / $5.041,963
Los Angeles 81.108.800 $100.000$1.108.800
.
Santa Barbara $168.300Fresno $247.500San Jose $405.900San Francisco $793.000 $100.000Salinas $198.900Vallejo $168.300Sacramento $247.500Rural Assistance $200.000
Colorado / $347,500
Denver $247.500
Florida / $1.326.550
Miami $654.500 $100.000Tampa $247.500 5100.000 (Latin)M. Palm Such $168,300
11.1.1801 / $1.508.800
S. Chicago 5776.160 5100.000 $150.000N. Chicago 5332.640Ouff i Phelps 5150.000
158
Sas
State of Ca. $119.983
City of LA $75.000
State of Co. $100.000
State of Fl $56.250
I
Continued
Areas where MA programs serve a liiirge number of Hispanics of the total minority populatipq
MBOCs MEDCs TCCs Skis
New York / $1,964,600 New York/Newark $100400 $150,000 NY Stets $100,000
Brooklyn $354,816Bronx $310,464Queens $210.672Manhattan $232,848Rochester $168,300Nassau/Suffolk $247,500
NY Cfty $90,000
Texas / 81.809.400 State $113,000
Austin $247.500Houston $693400Dallas $405,900
$loomo$100.000 $150400
New Jersey / 81.011.300 State 8150,000
Newark $693,000New Brunswick $168,300
Connect$cutt / $318,300
Hartford $168000 8150.000
1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEMInotity Beektese Development Agency
BDC Newts*
LEGEND* REGIONAL OFFOS
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
0 STALL Mko ILPORT BUSINESS CENTERS
A REGIONAL COUNOLS
0 RUM ASSIST/ACE CENTERS
DOAN BUSINESS arms
emerelem ile *A00
ION asr soma 0 0 O ION
1111111111
UMW
S..
160
156
Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. I do want to apologize forhaving to go away and vote. But as I said, that is part of the proc-ess here in the House.
I understand that you have to leave us at this time.Mr. RIVERA. Yes; in about 5 or 10 minutes.Mrs. HALT.. I would like to ask a question or two.I understand that President Reagan has announced that $22 bil-
lion will be awarded in Federal contracts for minority businesses. Iwould like to know what is the status of the program. How soon doyou expect this to be implemented and what impact will this haveon the Hispanic community?
Mr. RIVERA. The correct figure is $15 billion in procurements forthe next 3 years and $6 to 7 billion for procurements by recipients ofFederal grants and cooperative agreements. That's where we get the$22 billion from, and that is over a 3-year period.
In the area of procurements, we're talking about an average of$5 billion a year. Back in 1980, just to put this in some historicalsense, the Federal Government spent some $3.1 billion on Federalprocurements. Last year it was $4.4 billion. We're talking about a$1.3 billion increase during the Reagan administration years.Again, our goal this year is $4.8 billion, and next year it will be inexcess of $5 billion.
We monitor very closely, on a quarterly basis, all of the procure-ments for Federal agencies. The last report that I have seen is forMarch 30, the first 6 months of the year. We are running a littlebit behind last year. We should be at 10 percentthe President hascalled for a 10-percent increase. Secretary Baldrige has sent lettersto all agency heads, all department heads, notifying them wherethey are on their goal, whether they are ahead or behind. Weexpect to reach our goal this year. This will be done every quarterfor the next 3 years.
Mrs. HALL. Very good. I do want to thank you for your presence,for your presentation, and for your endurance today. I think youare doing an excellent job. I appreciate you giving us a copy of yourpresentation. We would also appreciate having a business card forour files, in case you have one with you. If not, you could leaveyour phone number and whatnot.
I represent the First District of Indiana, which has a large per-centage of Hispanics, and I do work closely with them. We certain-ly would like to take advantage of the services of your office in pro-moting our Hispanic businesses.
Mr. RIVERA. If I can be of any help in any way, just let me know.Mrs. HALL. Our next witness is Mr. Heriberto Herrera, Deputy
Administrator of the SBA.
STATEMENT OF HERIBERTO HERRERA
Mr. HERRERA. Thank you.Madam Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, I am hon-
ored to be here today. We are pleased that the Subcommittee onCensus and Population, in conjunction with the Congressional His-panic Caucus, has chosen to focus on National Hispanic HeritageWeek by holding a series of hearings on special concerns of theHispanic community. This event provides an excellent opportunity
161
157
to reflect on the influence Hispanics have had on our Nation, theircontributions to our society, their growth and expansion in busi-ness, and their accomplishments as a community. The Small Busi-ness Administration is especially proud of the dedication and com-mitment of our Hispanic business entrepreneurs and we wish togive them special recognition during our observance of NationalHispanic Heritage Week.
I am personally very proud that President Reagan designated theweek of September 11 through 17 as National Hispanic HeritageWeek. My father was born in Mexico and migrated to Texas. Hehas never lost the values he learned as a boy growing up inMexico, values he subsequently taught me during my childhoodlifetime values of honor, pride and achievement, and concern forour fellow man. My father has used those values to guide not onlyhis life and the lives of his family, but also the course of his ownsmall business operation. I, too, have made every effort to applythose values in my life. I know that today I have an even greaterresponsibility to remember and to apply those principles in my po-sition at the U.S. Small Business Administration.
As you know, and as I was reared, Hispanics have traditionallybeen reluctant to become involved with programs and projects gov-erned by Federal regulations. We are an independent, "go it alone"people who are not interested in seeing how much we can get fromour Government. While generally this is an admirable trait to becherished, we must educate our own to view some Government as-sistance as an opportunity, not a handout.
For that reason, I was particularly pleased when a Hispanicfather and son business team from Tulare, Calif. were named asthe national small business winners of the year by PresidentReagan. Messrs. Louis F. Ruiz and Frederick Ruiz started theirfrozen Mexican food company almost 20 years ago in a 400-square-foot warehouse, with an old used stove, a small refrigerator, and amixmaster from the family kitchen.
Through hard work, dedication, and a keen perspective on theirgoals, they have managed to build Ruiz Food Products, Inc., into acompany which projects annual sales this year in excess of $15 mil-lion. They found opportunity, they seized it, and they succeeded.
I am proud that the Small Business Administration played amajor part in the company's expansion by making the Ruizes aloan to expand their processing plant into a modern plant. TheRuizes' continued growth and ultimate success is a prime exampleof the tough strength of small business in America.
Today, small businesses continue to set the economic pace for theU.S. marketplace. They are 13 million strong, account for 98 per-cent of all businesses, and employ about one-half of the country'slabor force. Small businesses are instrumental in the developmentof most new products, most new ideas, and most new technologies,while producing almost 40 percent of the gross national product inthis country.
This fact was acknowledged by President Reagan during thepresentation of the President's second annual report to Congress on"The State of Small Business". During 1982, a year which was tre-mendously difficult for everyone in business, nearly 560,000 newsmall businesses were launched.
16226-464 0-$3--11
158
That statistic represents 560,000 personal dreams and individualideals which refused to go away in the face of adversitydreamswhich refused to be scared by skyrocketing interest rates, by re-duced spending capabilities on the part of American citizens. Smallbusiness owners and managers are today's pioneers on America'sfrontier.
Our country's economy is on the mend. Interest rates are down,inflation has been slashed, and the buying power of the averageAmerican citizen is up. These factors will spur small business ex-pansion to a healthy upturn.
When the Small Business Administration was established byCongress 30 years ago, it was determined that we would be a small,independent agency with a goal of assisting, counseling, and cham-pioning the causes of small business. We accomplish this through avariety of programs, including loans and other forms of financialassistance.
We hold the belief, however, that the Government should notremove all risk from small business. We should not be there to pro-vide assistance anytime a firm has a financial shortfall. Instead, weare determined to insure that small businesses receive necessary fi-nancial resources through the private marketplace and throughprivate sector initiatives.
We are acutely aware that Americans who are members of mi-nority groups, including Hispanics, have long had difficulty in en-tering the Nation's economic mainstream. Raising money to opentheir small businesses has not been easy for minorities. As youknow, minority business persons have had trouble finding, keeping,and expanding sales markets. Members of minority groups, ofcourse, are eligible for all SBA programs. But SBA offers specialprograms for minorities to start small businesses or to expand ex-isting ones. In this effort, SBA has combined its own programs withthose of private industry, banks, local communities, and other Fed-eral agencies.
President Reagan has issued an Executive order setting forth hisminority business program which spans a 10-year period. I thinkMr. Rivera, in your questions, Madam Chairwoman, addressed thatExecutive order and I will skip over that.
I think these steps will promote an economic environment inwhich minority entrepreneurs can better use their talents andskills to achieve more productive lives for themselves and, in sodoing, contribute to a stronger economic base for America. Thisagency will strive to assure that the Hispanic community sharesequally with other minorities in our expanded efforts.
The Small Business Administration has three broad programs toassist in the creation and expansion of minority owned businesses:management assistance, financial, and procurement,.
In management assistance, statistics show that most small busi-nesses fail due to poor management. For this reason, SBA placesspecial emphasis on improving the management ability of smallbusiness owners and managers. SBA's management assistance pro-gram is extensive and diversified. It includes free individual coun-seling, courses, conferences, workshops, and problem clinics. Whileour statistics do not separate classes of minorities served, our dis-trict offices and extension services, particularly in the Southwest-
163
159
ern portion of the United States, report a large number of Hispanicclients.
Our San Antonio district office, in cooperation with the NationalAssociation of Bank Women, holds monthly prebusiness workshopsto assist Hispanic women. The San Antonio office has an ongoingmanagunent and training assistance program to help those busi-nesses which have been hurt by the devaluation of the peso.Ninety-five percent of the minorities served in this area are His-panics. The Small Business Administration and the National Tele-communications Information Agency are cohosting a conference inSan Antonio in November, directed to Hispanics, to explain from Ato Z how entrepreneurs can enter this rapidly expanding, lucrativefield of telecommunications.
The Capital Ownership Development Branch of SBA contractswith private consulting firms to assist all minority firms in man-agement and technical assistance. For example, we are preparingto fund the American Association of Hispanic CPA's, a proposalwhich will link CPA's into the membership of the AAHCPA, estab-lish and operate a national office in Washington, and deliver training and technical assistance to enable minority CPA firms to par-ticipate more effectively in SBA's 8(a) program.
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants has alsoinstituted a peer group review where one CPA will audit the officeof another each year. This association will also establish proce-dures for peer group review. This activity will consist of nationwiderecruiting, based in Washington, D.C.
SBA's primary financial resources for minority entrepreneursare through our direct and guaranteed loan programs, suretybonds, and the 503 certified development companies.
In 1982, Hispanics were allocated 36.8 percent of total minoritylending through the Small Business Administration. In the first 9months of 1983, this figure was 44.2 percent. Hispanics received28.4 percent of total surety bond guarantees.
As you know, the economic impact caused by the peso devalu-ation has severely affected many small businesses along the Mexi-can border. As of July 29, 1983, 323 loans have been approved atapproximately $30 million. It is likely that few additional loanswill be made in the border regions, since for many firms additionaldebt is not a viable solution to the peso devaluation problem. Thepeso pack initiatives have been well received and the business com-munity recognizes that one cannot borrow ones way out of debt.The true solution is recovery of the Mexican economy. We realizethat some small businesses rely heavily on the Mexican economyand will continue to do so. A combination of a reorientation of thebusiness infrastructure and a healthy, stable Mexican economy arenecessary for economic confidence in these businesses.
For many small businesses, a combination of financial assistanceis required. To help accomp..sh this goal, the SBA is proud of aprogram which in the last year has helped to save or create morethan 50,000 jobs. The certified development company program,commonly called the 503 program after the section of the SmallBusiness Act, provides long-term, fixed asset financing to spur eco-nomic development and the revitalization of America's cities at acost lower than normally can be obtained by small business. This
64(,:
160
financial assistance is provided to small businesses from the pri-vate development company which is licensed by SBA. The develop-ment company, in turn, sells that debenture to the Federal FinanceBank, a division of the U.S. Treasury. At the same time, the SBAguarantees 100 percent of the debenture to the FFB. This combina-tion of private development companies and the Federal Govern-ment results in providing the necessary private capital for a smallbusiness to acquire plant facilities, machinery, inventory, and todeal with other financial needs during its developmental phase.
The 503 program is boosting economic development in our cities.Of particular interest to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is the503 we have recently licensed in San Antonio. This program,United Communities, is owned and controlled by Hispanic women.The CDC projects that they will submit to SBA six loans for$800,000 in their first year of operation and $900,000 in theirsecond year. This is an excellent example of the private sector andGovernment cooperation. The Government provides incentives andthe private sector puts the package together. In one Hispanicgroup, the Small Business Administration was able to work withthe group to correct many of the problems in their application,which went on to become a licensed CDC. Although we have advo-cated this program in the Southwest, we have received very few ap-plications by Hispanics.
Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act authorizes SBA to enterinto contracts with other Federal Government agencies to supplygoods and services those agencies need. SBA then subcontracts theactual performance of the work to small businesses owned and con-trolled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Theobjective of the 8(a) program is to assist eligible small firms tobecome independently competitive.
Hispanics are eligible for 8(a) participation. Hispanics represent39.1 percent of the total minority business owned population of theUnited States. As of July 1983, Hispanics comprised 22.9 percent ofthe 8(a) portfolio.
As I mentioned earlier, the President is committed to increasingthe number of firms participating in the 8(a) program by 500 byApril 1984. We are encouraging additional Hispanic participationin this program to more equitably distribute participation and con-tract support to the Hispanic community. We are placing a strongemphasis on providing 8(a) contract support to Hispanics, particu-larly in those areas near the Mexican border which have been dev-astated by the devaluation of the peso. We are very enthusiasticthat the President has called for a Southwest border initiative torecharge this area's weak economy. Vice President Bush is chair-ing this group, comprised of high level Government officials fromall major Federal procuring agencies. The agencies are beingstrongly encouraged to redirect their efforts to expedite purchaz-ing, loans and grants in the Southwest. We are making vigorous ef-forts to refuel this area to provide permanent, satisfactory employ-ment. I am honored to be SBA's representative for this group.
I would like to summarize our goals to achieve Hispanic parity inthe United States.
We must provide a continued emphasis on the tremendous oppor-tunities available in some Federal programs, particularly those in
165
161
cooperation with the private sector. We need to place more His-panics in key positions in the Federal Government at all levels. Weare proud that among our top management the Small Business Ad-ministration has three Regional Administrators and three DistrictDirectors, in addition to my position as Deputy Administrator, whoare Hispanic.
We must continue to encourage the private sector to removeprejudice and other obstacles in assisting minorities with financing,technical and management expertise, marketing, subcontractingopportunities, and others. We must enhance the educational proc-ess of Hispanic entrepreneurs in finance, management, marketing,and other areas.
As a representative of the U.S. Small Business Administration,and as an Hispanic with roots in this country, and feeling a deepcommitment to my fellow men and women, I encourage all His-panics to use the advantages created for us, advantages that I havetouched on today. But let us remember that many more exist. Anarray of possibilities are there for us to develop, capitalize, andshare.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your time today. I will bepleased to answer any questions you might have.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Herrera.First of all, I would like to point out what you mentioned in the
latter part of your statement, the needs for more Hispanics to beinvolved in government at all levels. I agree with that 100 percent.Of course, I am committed to work to make sure that we get a fairshare of Hispanics. I, too, believe there should be more, not just atthe lower echelons, but all across, we do need to have more involve-ment. In fact, here in the Congress we would really like to seemore Members elected.
I would also like to just emphasize the fact that 40 percent of ourbusinesses are owned by small business persons, and that's almosthalf, a large percentage. How much, in terms of dollars, how muchmoney in loans do you make to Hispanic businesses yearly? Weknow the small ones make up 40 percent of the total business com-munity, and I was wondering how many dollars do you loan His-panic business persons in this group?
Mr. HERRERA. Madam Chairwoman, that information is availa-ble. I do not have it with me, but I would be glad to provide it tothe committee.
Mrs. HALL. Very good. I would appreciate that.[The information follows:)Fiscal year 1983 (through August). $67.787.829: fiscal year 1982. $66.813.140: and
fiscal year 1981. $117.040.488.
Mrs. HALL. Then, of course, the third question is, in your opin-ion, what are the most important services that one could obtainfrom your office?
Mr. HERRERA. Well, the most important services are in the areaof the financial programs that we have, which not only include thedebt programs that I mentioned, the guaranteed and direct loans,but also venture capital through our Small Business InvestmentCorporations or MESBIC's. We have a large number of CDC's thatI also talked about that provide long-term capital, which is some-
166 I
162
thing that is very difficult for small businesses to obtain in the fi-nancial markets right now.
I was at a meeting earlier today and I qutstion73 the audience interms of their knowledge of some of these programs. The 503 is oneof the most least understood of them all. It is a question of gettinginformation out to the Hispanic community and other minoritycommunities to be sure they know about these programs so thatthey can form the local development entities that are required, totake advantage of these.
But through our district offices, we have 100 district and branchoffices throughout the United States and the Trust Territories.They are the principal delivery system that we have. We also have10 regional offices that operate directly between the Washingtoncentral office and our district offices. All of those officesthe dis-trict offices, regional offices, and the central officehave the infor-mation available, for the finance, for the procurement, for the eco-nomic development programs that I mentioned.
Mrs. HALL. Very good. That sounds interesting.The final question is, you have regional offices around the coun-
try. Do you have persons in these offices who would be available tocome to the regional workshops, community workshops, to assistHispanic business persons? For example, in my district I think itwould help a lot if I could have a workshop and have persons fromyour office come and talk to our people and help them on how theycould improve their businesses and improve their services. I thinkthis would be a very good thing to do.
Mr. HERRERA. Madam Chairwoman, that is one of the areas thatwe partcipate in to the greatest extent with the local communities,with the State government, with the counties. We are always hold-ing procurement conferences, management assistance conferences,financial assistance conferences. We work with the banks; we workwith the local governments, with the State governments. We wouldbe more than pleased to talk to you about holding such conferencesin your district and in your State.
Mrs. HALL. Very good.Mr. HERRERA. Dick Durkin is our Regional Administrator out of
Chicago that handles your region.Mrs. HALL. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Herrera. Again, the com-
mittee would like to thank you for your presence and for your par-ticipation.
Mr. HERRERA. Thank you.Mrs. HALL. You are excused at this time.Mr. HERRERA. Thank you.Mr. PAs-rRicx. Mr. Herrera, I would like to point out that counsel
for minority and majority members have seven legislative days tosubmit questions for the record, which we might want you to re-spond to in writing.
Mr. HERRERA. I would be pleased to do that. Thank you.Mrs. HALL. Our next witness is Mr. Jesus Chavarria, editor i nd
publisher of Hispanic Business magazine.
16'i
163
STATEMENT OF JESUS CHAVARRIA
Mr. CHAVARRIA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members ofthe caucus. My purpose here today is to give testimony before thisdistinguished panel on "The Hispanic Business Picture."
We are all familiar with the proverbial observation, "A picture isworth a thousand words." Although I hesitate to question such avenerable truism, in this case a picture alone, without an extensivephoto caption of, say, a thousand words, would not really convey acorrect understanding of the current status of Hispanic business inthe United States.
A case in point: If we look at a candid camera snapshot of His-panic business today, we view a picture of health, vigor, aggressivegrowth, and performance.
The "Hispanic Business Top 400 in Sales," a directory of the topHispanic-owned corporations in the country, published in June ofthis year, suggests as much. The "Hispanic Business Top 400"posted aggregate sales of $3.71 billion, with the aggregate numberof employees totaling 36,734. The top 10 companies of the 400 aloneposted sales of $1.04 billion, and the to 10 companies in number ofemployees employed 9,398 workers. This information is consistentwith the profile of Hispanic business that can be obtained from the1977 census of minority and Hispanic business, the most recentavailable document outlining a quantitative account of Hispanicbusiness economy in the United States.
The results of the 1977 census of Hispanic business are fairlywell known. According to those findings, Hispanic firms, in aggre-gate, and their gross receipts, represent the largest single minoritybusiness segment in the country. This is the case even though His-panics do not make up the largest minority population segment inthe country.
Moreover, if we compare the performance of Hispanic businessfirms with the performance of general small business in three criti-cal areas, we find that Hispanic firms compare quite favorably. Ifwe look at the rate of business formation, the rate of businessgrowth, and the degree of concentration in the retail/service sec-tors, this is what we find. Hispanic firms are forming at a fasterrate than the national average for general small business. Second,Hispanic businesses are growing at a rate comparable to smallbusiness in general. And third, Hispanic firms are not unduly con-centrated in the retail/service sectors. On the contrary, thenumber of Hispanic firms in construction, transportation, andmanufacturing is greater proportionately than for all small busi-ness in general.
So, in general terms, the picture we get of Hispanic businesseconomy is one of vigorous growth and expansion of existing stock,precisely in those SIC areasconstruction, transportation, andmanufacturingwhere growth counts. The notion that Hispanicslack in entrepreneurial vigor is clearly unfounded.
But the foregoing notwithstanding, the picture just presented isnot complete, for there are two major problem areas which contin-ue to dogto bar the development of Hispanic business formationand business growth. These areas, succinctly stated, are (1) a lackof marketing opportunities, and (2) capital formation.
1 6 ci.
164
One of the major breakthroughs in Hispanic business economyduring the past 10 to 15 years has been the emergence of compa-nies capable of marketing products and services in markets ofscale, either regional or national markets. We can readily identifytwo major marketing areas where Hispanic firms, as a whole, havebeen notably unsuccessfulthose two areas being the Federal andnational corporate markets.
I am mindful that in the time allotted we must be brief, so letme quickly present some basic facts.
Fact No. 1: There are two major Federal programs set up tomake accessible Federal procurement markets to small and minor-ity business firms. Both are administered by the Small BusinessAdministration. The largest program by far originated with PublicLaw 95-507, which requires major Government prime contractorsto subcontract to "socially and economically disadvantaged individ-uals."
The second largest program is called the 8(a) program, which setsaside subcontracts on a negotiated, sole-source basis to small mi-nority businesses. Between 1968 and 1982, the 8(a) program hadawarded approximately $5 billion in contracts to minority-ownedfirms, of which approximately $800 million, or 16 percent of thetotal dollars awarded, went to Hispanic firms.
If we turn our attention to Public Law 95-507, a law which datesback to 1978, the situation worsens. In fiscal year 1980, in keepingwith 95-507, the top Federal procuring agencies stated they weregiving out contracts with an estimated value of $62 billion requir-ing specific subcontract goals. But the Government could notreport, could not break out how many of the subcontracting dollarsdesignated for small businesses went to minority-owned businesses.Asked for this information for an article appearing in "HispanicBusiness" magazine, called "Wanted: an Hispanic-SBA Dialogue,"a top SBA official said, "That's where our figures, quite frankly,break down." Sophisticated analysis is not required to concludethat minority and Hispanic firms are receiving disproportionatemarket shares of Public Law 95-507 and 8(a) Federal small busi-ness procurement.
Fact No. 2: If one turns to procurement with national corpora-tions, the picture does not get any better. Take one example. TheNational Minority Supplier Development Council, funded by theDepartment of Commerce, represents the major pipeline for target-ing corporate purchasing from minority firms. According to thecouncil, on whose board and principal committees sit executivessuch as the chairmen of the boards of General Motors, Coca Cola,and other principal national corporations, in 1982 corporations pur-chased $4.2 billion worth of goods and services from minority firms.The NMSDC executive director has emphasized that the announced$4.2 billion is, in fact, 'an understatement of actual performance."The figure, in other words, was much higher. Efforts to obtainbreakouts of the Hispanic market share of private sector purchas-ing obtained through the auspices of the NMSDC, a federallyfunded program, have not been successful. But until recently, His-panics have not served proportionately in any influential positionsin the organization.
169
165
The question that must be asked is how can such publicly-sup-ported and/or Government programs be held accountable to pro-vide services and/or access to all disadvantaged Americans if theyare not mandated to report performancein particular, to reportperformance as to the intended impact and goals of such programsto insure equity of access to all sectors of the minority businesscommunity.
Today one hears that the Federal Government will purchase 15billion dollars' worth of services and products from minority firmsin the next 3 years. If Hispanic firms had received $800 million inprocurements through the 8(a) program as of 1982, is it realistic tobelieve that Hispanic firms will be receiving anywhere close to aproportionate amount of the targeted goal? The organizational andadministrative machinery is simply not in place to insure a propor-tionate market share of Federal business going to Hispanic firms.
If one examines the broad spectrum of Federal involvement withHispanic business, the results are similar. Take Hispanic employ-ment at the SBA. As of June 1980, Hispanic employment at theSBA totaled 194 employees, or 4 percent of the agency's work force,and 86 percent of those slots were in the lower grades, 1 through12. Due to Federal job freezes, the situation is not likely to havechanged much since then.
If we look at capital formation, the situation does not vary.There are over 100 minority enterprise small business investmentcorporations, MESBIC's, originally set up to provide venture capi-tal to minority firms. Again, no information is available as to theirperformance, especially as to how they perform with Hispanic busi-ness firms.
The bottom line is that Hispanics earn over $67 billion annually,of which a significant percentage goes to pay Federal taxes. His-panics today have as good a case as the original 13 Colonies did, ofcharging the Federal Government, as the Colonies did Great Brit-ain, of "taxation without representation." For the sad fact is thatso-called Federal programs to assist minority business, and so-called affirmative action programs mandated by Federal law, havenot worked, are not working, and will not work for HispanicAmericans.
In the private sector major corporations are signing today sub-stantial covenants to trade with minority communities, to invest inminority economic development But those agreements will notimpact Hispanic Americans. Hispanic Americans here in theUnited States and in Latin America make up one of the largestracial-ethnic markets of virtually all of the Fortune 500 companies,but these companies, by and large, while they are gradually begin-ning to invest in minority economic development, are not investingin Hispanic American economic development.
Mrs. HALL. Excuse me, Mr. Chavarria. I am very sorry, but thereis a vote on the floor, and I have 10 minutes to get over and castmy vote. We are going to have to recess again. After I cast my vote,I will return and we can continue. I am very sorry, but this I haveto do.
Mr. CHAVARRIA. I appreciate that.[Whereupon, the subcommittee was in recess.]Mrs. HALL. We will resume our hearings.
1::74):
166
I think at the time we left to vote Mr. Chavarria was testifying.Would you please continue, sir.
Mr. CHAVARRIA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.The message, Madam Chairwoman, and members of the caucus,
is very clear. The picture of Hispanic business firms, narrowly fo-cused, is one of vigor, performance, and growth. But the market en-vironment in which these companies operate, on the whole, islargely indifferent and unresponsive to their interests.
There are some exceptions, some bright spots, but they are notoverwhelming in number. Is this perspective too negative? Is itoverly dark and pessimistic? I don't believe so. It is tenable. It isrealistic. For the scarce numbers that are available tell the storyquite well. Research done by "Hispanic Business" magazine has ledto one inescapable conclusion: The bigger the program, the smallerthe share for Hispanics. Hispanic entrepreneurs, men and women,have to be triathlon champions. They have to beat the odds, know-ing that the house holds all the high cards. They have to knowwhat the reality is out there and still want to pursue their entre-preneurial dreams.
As to remedies that can be recommended, Madam Chairwoman,the best that I can make here is that there is a need for verifiableinformation, for without verifiable information there can be no ac-countability. And there is a need for forums, such as this forum, tocall attention to the information. Awareness is a great remedy initself.
Thank you very much.Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much.Do you have to leave at this time?Mr. CHAVARRIA. No, Madam Chairwoman. I will be available.Mrs. HALL. We would like to continue with the testimony, and
then entertain questions. Thank you, sir.Our next witness is Miss Dorita Down, and she comes from the
American Institute for Transportation and Business Development.
STATEMENT OF DORITA deLEMOS DOWN
Ms. DOWN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.Distinguished panelists, ladies and gentlemen: I am Dorita deLe-
mos Down and I am the director of communications of the Ameri-can Institute for Transportation and Business Development.
The institute has given itself the charge to oversee the imple-mentation of section 105(f) of the Surface Transportation Assist-ance act of 1982. The section requires that not less than 10 percentof the amounts authorized to be appropriated under the act shallbe expended with small business concerns, owned and controlled bysocially and economically disadvantaged individuals. As Hispanicentrepreneurs, we fall into the category of "socially and economi-cally disadvantaged persons," as identified under section 8(d) of theSmall Business Act. As such, we are presumed eligible for partici-pation and funding opportunities available under section 105(f) ofthe STAA.
You are aware that each State, the District of Columbia, andPuerto Rico are recipients of surface transportation funds, the spe-
17i
167
cific allocation being determined by Federal formula. As you areaware, 1 cent of the total 5-cent gasoline tax is allocated for masstransit/capital improvement projects, and the remaining 4 cents isallocated for State highway, road, and bridge repairs. A very mini-mal portion of these moneys will be expended by FAA, NHTSA,the Coast Guard, and the remaining Department of Transportationagencies.
Section 105(f) does not limit participation solely to highway ormass transit contractors. Minority supportive service firms are eli-gible to participate in this 10-percent goalfor example, minorityarchitects, engineers, accountants and CPA's, any firms in ancil-lary businesses, as, for example, janitorial services, food services,maintenance services and the like. However, in order to become eli-gible for State contracting opportunities, the firm must be certifiedby the State in which they wish to do business. Certification re-quirements vary from State to State. Some are very rigid and re-quire up to 12 months to be certified. Other States will certify you1 or 2 days after you have submitted your bids. The institute isnow in the process of preparing an information and assessmentstudy to be used by the various State officials as well as contrac-tors, minority as well as majority, on the certification processes.
It is also important to remember that some States recognize thecertification of sister States and will grant reciprocity to minorityfirms seeking to do business out of State. A perfect example of thatis my own State of Maryland, which provides reciprocity with 12other States, some as far removed as Texas.
It is important to clearly understand that the U.S. Departmentof Transportation does not consider section 105(f) as a set-aside.There remains confusion over this issue, to the extent that Con-gressman Parren Mitchell consistently states that 105(f) is a set-aside.
Today many States are concerned that they will not or cannotmeet the 10-percent-minority-participation requirement, due towhat they deem an insufficient minority business population. How-ever, DOT regulations are flexible to meet that very concern. Inthe event the State discovers that it cannot meet the 10-percentMBE, WBE, DBE participation, it has the right to request a waiverto the Secretary of Transportation by August 1, prior to the end ofthe fiscal year. However, the request must be justified to the pointthat, in effect, the State has not been able to identify enoughWBE's, MBE's, and DBE's in that State who are certifiable underthe law.
It is therefore incumbent upon us to become informed about cer-tification procedures within each State in which we do business orseek to do business. We are n it limited to doing business only inthat State in which we presen4 reside. We can become certified asa foreign corporation in the State of our choice.
Let me remind you that over the 4-year authorization of the Sur-face Transportation Assistance Act the Nation will expend approxi-mately $74 billion. A minimum of $7.4 billion will go to MBE's,WBE's, and DBE firms. First, that is a lot of money; second, itmust go to those firms because it is the law; third, minorities de-serve to become full partners in the major task of rebuilding our
-1172
168
Nation's transportation infrastructure. Finally, it is the responsibil-ity to now take advantage of that opportunity.
Thank you.[The attachments to Ms. Down's statement follow:]
173
169
SUMMARY Of MANSCRIII
DEVELOPING AND MAINTAININ( MINORITY BUSINESSRELATIONSHIP:,
JULY 27, 1983
WORKSHOP A - OVERVIEW OF THL LECI5.ftTION'S MINORITY BUSINESS REQUIRE/W'T
The workshop discussion centered around questions relating to the 10%goal for minority business participation under the Surface TransportationAssistance Act of 1982. Concern was voiced over th( prohibition in somestates of set-asides for minority procurement and the manner in whichthese states would handle the federally mandated goals. In that a goalis only a percentage target of all monies to be spent and not a percentageof contracts on which only minority contractors can bid, there is noconflict with state prohibitions on set-asides. Additionally this 10%goal is the starting point for each of the states who must justify lowerpercentages. Insufficient justifications result in loss of federal funding.
The 10% goal is also monitored in several ways. First, by minority associa-tions and groups who must be consulted when less than a 10% goal is beingrequested. Secondly by factual justification of a shortfall at the endof the year, with respect to the 10% goal. Thirdly, there is a monthlymonitoring process.
WORKSBOF f - MANDATE FOR MINORITY BUSINESS PARTICIPATION
Workshop B ranged over a wide variety of topics. Federal Highway Adminis-tration recapped its efforts to assist MBE's by setting goals, providingprograms for financing and training. The question of what defines aminority was addressed. The law specifically states that Blacks, Hispanics,Asian Americans, American Indians and Alaskan Natives fall under thedefinition. However, a state may say that a successful minority contractor,based on past performance, would not be certifiable as disadvantaged.By the same token, a member of a majority group could, by virtue ofcircumstances, be certified as disadvantaged by the process within a state.
Many majority contractors complained about the quality of MBE's especiallywithit certain industries. Suggestions for meeting the problem of inferiorquality ranged from training programs by the state, OJT by prime contractorson the sites, national and state clearing houses of qualified firms andlooking to MBE's to provide supportive services, i.e. legal, accounting,in lieu of industry specific
contractors, i.e. pavement, hauling, etc.
Participants were confused over the issue of minority control over a firmseeking certification as an MBE. Essentially this 51% control must beboth in equity and day to day hands-on operation. The minority must bethe decision maker.
174ci 1
170
Lastly, the to. 41 bmeAu) and JUnOltli Ua d,floted Kanv Mbe cannotpet wort beeaur., thee cannot be bonded of last .(611 to Cbp1tvl.Suggest,o feet government support. u,, el ninorire financialiwt,tution. MI( e>p.a.ior of II. iJcl)%lllt,' It, the .ftl of the hinor,t,bur ine he :0444. ( ot 4.
WORKSHOP C - MINORITY CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION
Findint qualified minotite businvsset war the prime thrust of thediscussions. Since minority firm often have problems with respect tobonding, financ:n) and management. there ha to be some mechanism forassistance. One suggestion was f.athering the contractors, bankers andbondsmen together to hammer out specific dealt. Some stater have a veryactive search program, for minority businesses and maintain minoritycontractor lists b) capabilities. Minorite Development Centers are alsoto assist in the procerr. Mtjority contractors can help by networkingand passing names of minority contractors to those who are bidding onjobs. The minority community must also step forward and seek theopportunities.
The discussion then returned to the problems of percentage of minorityparticipation. )pith respect to minority contracts for such items as supportservices, i.e. legal or accounting, only those portions of funds expendedfor those activities for the contract can be counted in determining per-centages.
An additional percentage problem arises when a substantial portion ofthe contract is for materials. In terms of operating, a 10% goal crparticipation becomes larger by virtue of a smaller portion of the contractallotted to operating activities. States do have the power to adjustpercentages on a specific contract but must eventually arrive at leastat an overall 10% figure for all contracts combined.
WORKSHOP D - MON- COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
Regulations give three situations which constitute non-compliance withSection 105F of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982.
1. Failure to have an approved disadvantaged program2. Failure to have approved goals3. Failure to meet approved goals with subsequent insufficient
explanation of the failure.
In the final analysis, though, it is the spirit of implementation andthe cooperation of state officials and majority contractors that willmake the Act work.
Loopholes in state laws presented problems to several of the attendees.Panelists suggested that particular state proceedures be closely monitoredby contractors and their associations to avoid falling into non-compliance.
1e175
171
Lnfortament vi tht SlA/ tvh Irt a..ortd b. uIthbvidivl t' forth(' fundsUnder tilt Att. howtvtr, rtnor)t. firm, c.,i uoll ulth)n thc): tt?ttl tomariat therstlytt. among the no1c.11t. tontlattotA tialtbc plvtlodm} iuttIrtprobity, u)ti non.cmpliantt.
WORKSHOP E - OUTREACH AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
One state has an actit outreach effort through coordinators located inlocal communities. These coordinators visit MBE's to get to know them.State supportive strvicts people art also asked to troubleshoot in theminority communities resulting in the removal of the bond requirementfor sub-contractors.
Minority Business Development Centers serve MBE's in 100 metropolitanareas in the United States. Hese the MBE's can find technical expertiseto analyze and solve existing problems. A lot of small contractors areexcellent technicians but need guidance in financing, bonding and manage-ment. There are also computer data bases available with names of minoritycontractors for certain regions.
Finding and securing contracts essentially remains a function of contractsand networking.
176
172
American institute for Transportation and Business Development
1260 Eye Shoat, NW, Soho 402, Washington, DC 20006 (202) 3714277
STATE CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES
AITID ly embarked upon by survey of MSC f
promises. A wide range of forms and pr $ times Were noted amongthe with heavy Hispanic populations' New Mexico.Arizona, Col . Nevada. Florida, New 'fork. Tea .., and California. Allwere found to have some sort of MBE cert(f o process as required.
New York. California and Col were the only scat., in the group whichdived fication - and only on a limited basis usually with ed-
j states. Processing time from short 1-2 days for Nevadato ) months for Florida. Most of the other estimated 14-21 daysfor the process to run its came, provided all information and documentswere submitted with the application. All of the above haddl ins of firs. certified with-their respective states. Form, contentand organisation of these greatly from AMOUR to state.Nevada's was the most comprehensive in in that it notonly provided the firma, name, address. and type of work done but also.gave a profile of the company to include licensing limits, equipment lists.business ref . bank references sod bonding capability.
Colorado and Nevada were the only of the group who had
C ors in the certif t process. All other states didthe processing in-house.
Of the MSS application forms received, most used recommended federalSchedule A or a thereof. Florida Nos an steep Ily onerous
and d appl t form with requirement of approximately 25enclosures of tt . licenses end I t . A spokesman for the
Florida office mentioned that the form, dating from 19110. was currentlyunder revision.
All of the interviewed indt that they would meet the 10Kminimum minority participation for 19114 required by STAA '$2. In pat.
1 of the states notably Colorado, Nevada, California and Florida,comfortably exceeded their goals for 19$).
Texas and Florida in di that they did not have programs to assist
MSE's in achieving t t (bonding. loan guarantees and training).
Other ttttt had programs varying from 1 workshops year to supportive
services for training and technical to in-house
training. Texas has KFP in process to provide assistance to MSS's. Nevado
exp continuing problem with bonding and loan $ They
had sought solutions through DOT but WITS only provided with contacts.
Nevada has a computer system which targets MSC's for specific jobs.New Mexico publishes 5 month projection of opportunities for MSE'. Otherstates publish periodic bulletins for bidding opportunities.
In all, the practices of these states with large Illpanic populationsreflect the wide variety of plans, pr forms and organs of
the remainder of the tttttt .
177
11-444
173
PACT NEST
The Department of Transportation issued o final regulation on July111. 1147 to increase diesd god business participation in theDepartment's large Unsocial assistance programs for highways andmess transit. The regulation carries out section 101 (1) of theSurface Transportation Assistance Act of 111).
SACSCOOMM
Section 10S(1) prevides as follows.
Incept to the het the Se determises otherwise.met less than to percent.. of the smarts eutherised to be eppropunder this est shall be expended with mall Waimea concerns ownedour costrolled by socially sad economically disdvestsged individualsis defined by section S(d) of the Small &misses Act (IS U.S.C.4)7(d) and rel be g regulatioss promulgated pursuantthereto.
The mew regulation builds en the Department's e aaaaa ug minoritybosisees enterprise rule Ott CFR Part 2)). Under this enrule. programs. per sample, the dollar value of minority businessparticipation in the highway propos is Fiscal Tear 11112 was $411
ever two sod s halt times sore than it Pistol Tee: 1170.the year before the rule was published. Niserity business participationin the mess transit program we worth $274 sillies is Pistol Tear
SICIPIIIITS' MULL COALS
In Petiole 105(f).
The Deportment recompips, however. that it may net be reassembleto Impart every recipient to soot ten percent goal st once.A recipient may request approval of a goal et lees than to peTo decide Mortimer lower goal is justifiable, the Department seedsisformatise about the ability of disadvastaged Paimesses to workon the recipients DOT. sod the Wert, the recipientis asking to impose diedivestsed business participation. Thee.recipients a requesting approval of a lower sera will be asked tosubmit such informetip. Before requesting a lower pal. recipawill ales commit with minority and general e cemmosityorsasisatisse. sod other in d group.
The Department will emmider each request for a goal of less thanpercent on its merits, in light of 8'1 ciscumetasees relevant tothe request. If the isformaties provided in support of the requestis immffmient. the Department will common further with the recipiest.If the Departnest does not approve the goal the recipient has requested.the Depammemt. after consulting with the recipient, may establishas adjusted Oegll goal that rep reasesaIs impecttiosler disedvastaged bugloss. parAcipatios is the recipient's programa.
174
COMPLIANCE
If the recipient fails to meet its overall goal, it has the opportunityto explain to the Department why the goal could not be achieved.Among the circumstances that may be taken into consideration isthe award of contracts to contractors who did not meet contractgoals but made strenuous efforts to do so. if the recipient'sexplanation does not Justify its failure to meet the goal. theDepartment may direct the recipient to take future remedial stepsto improve its disadvantaaged business participation.
A recipient is regarded as being in noncompliance with the rule,and therefore in danger of Toeing its Federal fund., in only twosituations. First, recipient is in noncompliance if it doesnot have an approved disadvantaged business program or goal. Second,
recipient is in noncompliance if it fails to take remedial actionto improve its disadvantaged business participation as the Departmentrequests. A recipient is not regarded as being in noncompliancesimply because it has failed to achieve the level of disadvantagedbusiness participation called for in its overall goal.
WOMEN-OWNED NUSINESSES
Many women-owned busi have exp d concern about the effectof this regulation on them. The department's existing requirement
of sep goals for women-owned businesses will continue withoutchange. As section S(d) provide., non-minority women will havethe opportunity to request consideration as socially and economicallydisadvantaged individuals on case-by-case basis. If recipient
approves such a request, contracts with the woman's company wouldcount toward the goal for disadvantaged businesses on the samebasis as minority -owned firm.
EXISTING PROGRAM PROVISIONS
Most provisions of the Department'. existing program will continueto operate as they have in the past. Recipients will set sepoverall and contract goals for the participation of disadvantagedbusinesses and women -owned busi . Prime contractors must
meet these goals or demon hat they made good faith effortsto do so. Recipients will continue to make determinations aboutthe eligibility of companies to participate as disadvantaged orwomen-owned busi . Effective eligibility screening by recipientswill continue to be essential in order to prevent the award to"fronts" of contracts that should go to legitimate disadvantagedbusi
.
179'
175
Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much.Miss Down, I understand that you do have to leave at this time
due to an appointment at the White House, so if you would, Iwould just like to ask a number of questions.
First of all, I am very pleased to know that you are working withthe Surface Transportation Act. I was in the Congress I guessabout 2 weeks before it was adopted in 1982, and in my opinion itis perhaps one of the most effective tools to develop the highwaysystem in this country and at the same time provide a fair sharefor minority businesses. There was a 10-percent set-aside included.
At the present time, approximately how many Hispanic business-es are participating in this program?
Ms. DowN. Not as many as we would like to see. But we are com-piling that information in our office and I will be delighted to pro-vide you with that information.
Mrs. HALL. Very good. When you get the information, would youplease share it with us. We would really like to have it.
Ms. DowN. I would be delighted.Mrs. HALL. I would also like to say that, as a person who is work-
ing in the program, is your office available also to come to areas, ordo you have persons in regional offices who can talk to Hispanicbusiness people?
You know, one of the problems I have in my district is that somany of our businessesnot just Hispanic businesses, but business-es period, perhaps with the exception of the large onessimply donot know a lot of the services that are available. One of my tasks isto bring in resources, to bring in people who can provide informa-tion and to make resources available. It is far more convenient todo it as a group. For example, if I could have a workshop and havesomeone come in to explain the program, perhaps more of mypeople could participate.
Do you have such people available?Ms. DowN. Yes, we do.Mrs. HALL. Very good. You will be hearing from our office.Ms. DowN. Thank you very much.Mrs. HALL. Our next witness today is Mr. Jose Font, president of
the Greater Washington Ibero-American Chamber of Commerce.Mr. Font.
STATEMENT OF JOSE FONTMr. FONT. Madam Chairperson, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to have been invited to participate inthis set of hearings concerning our Hispanic population.
Since I have spent the bulk of my professional life working forand with Hispanic business persons, I will attempt to portray foryou how our Hispanic citizen or resident tries to enter the main-stream of the American economy.
It may be especially helpful to indicate the problems and chal-lenges faced by the Hispanic business person so that we may givesome though to the efficacy and value of the assistance programswhich the Government makes available to our minority businesspersons. I believe that we all agree that it is in the self-interest ofall Americans that the largest number of people work effectively to
180
176
generate income and employment in our society and that it is forthose purposes that tax dollars are expended to help bring our mi-nority residents into the mainstream.
In the brief time alloted to me today, I would like to assume thatthe general background and diversity of our population has alreadybeen presented and entered for the record of these hearings. I willtherefore limit my remarks to business specific matters. in doing soI will (1) speak of problems the Hispanic business person faces incommon with other minority business, (2) note certain areas of con-cern peculiar to our Hispanic business community, and (3) finallyaddress some thoughts to the Government programs available toassist these businesses.
Problems common to minority small business. In the case of mostminority start-up and early stage business ventures, we find inad-equate capitalization, especially working capital. Generally speak-ing, these business persons cannot find start-up capital beyond therealm of their own savings and the limited resources of family andfriends. Usually, too, the optimism and hope that led to starting abusiness causes people to overestimate their ability to penetratethe market and sell their product or service.
Due to this same inadequacy of capital, easier entries to the busi-ness world, such as buyouts of even moderately successful business-es, or the investment in a franchise, are usually precluded.
Usually businesses are begun in this sector with inadequate orno legal or financial structuring. By that I mean in the strategicsense. This virtually assures such firms that banks will not providethem credit and that major government or commercial contractorswill be unable to deal with them.
The owners chores of bookkeeping and the use of proper account-ing records are matters foreign to these entrepreneurs. To pay foradequate monthly or quarterly reports from outside accountingfirms is often considered a secondary option in the allocation offunds. Hence, many small minority business owners do not evenknow the true state of their firms.
As you can see, I am speaking of the 95 percent of the minorityentrepreneurs. I am not talking about the larger firms who havepassed the threshold of infrastructural development.
These firms find it most difficult to penetrate the market if thatmeans selling beyond their ethnic community. They do it, but withdifficulty. They do little or no market research. If they provide aservice, say professional consulting, which is a big industry in thenational capital area, they know little about the marketing andprocurement process. Also, even when these business people under-stand the importance of and the methodology of marketing, theylack the resources to get out and sell. They are often too busy satis-fying the last customer to have time to be out looking for the nextone.
This list could easily be made much larger with statements aboutdeficiencies in management, personnel policies, public relations, etcetera. Simply stated, the minority business has no room for mis-takes, which frequently means that if the enthusiasm and re-sources thrown into a project don't bring the expected results inthe short run, there are no opportunities for a second turn at bat.
The Hispanic business is particular.
177
Our Hispanic business person, in general, has no history or pointof reference within family or immediate community with regard togetting into business in the American setting. This lack of know-how leads to numerous errors and failures. There is simply no"how did my father or my ancestor do it."
It is especially true of our people that they find it hard to pene-trate the market beyond the Hispanic community. This condition isfurther exacerbated when English ability is very limited.
There is frequently an unwillingness to accept the so-called bu-reaucratic reporting, licensing and tax-paying procedures requiredin our system.
There is a tendency to be quite secretive and untrusting eventoward external support sources. This often results in only immedi-ate problems being disclosed when deeper analysis is called for toguarantee effective aid. Again, I am referring to the problems thatHispanic businesses as well as other minorities face.
Government assistance programs.While. there is a plethora of services available through the gov-
ernment to assist minority businesses, the basic ones are seated in(1) the network established by the Minority Business DevelopmentAgency [MBDA] of the Department of Commerce, and (2), the mi-nority business assistance programs of the Small Business Adminis-tration which also is deeply involved with (3), the Government-wideprocurement regulations calling for certain proportions of pur-chases to be allocated to minority firms.
Certain of these programs are meant to assist with capital acqui-sition whether of equity or debt. I would urge that these programsbe kept in place, including the MESBIC and direct loan programsof the SBA. The Certified Development Corporation and guaran-teed loan programs involving the SBA serve a valuable purpose aswell.
In mentioning here a few programs administered by the SBA, Iam forced to note that we view that agency as being overloaded. Ifit is not going to be provided funding and staff to do its tasks in atimely mannerand time is essential to businessthen certaintasks should be taken off its back. One such reductionand we'rejust throwing this outin work would be the entire administrationof what is known as the 8(a) program and certification for that pro-gram.
I fully endorse the congressional mandate that Federal procure-ment be proportionately allocated to minority businesses. The regu-latory procedures developed for the program's implementation maybe excellent in theory, but they are proving unworkable in fact.Federal procurement officials usually refuse to give contracts to ca-pable minority firms unless the SBA's seal of approval [certifica-tion] has been given to the firm. In this way the SBA serves like aperformance bonding entity for the rest of the government whichdoubts the capacity of minorities to deliver. This is an insult to mi-norities since the government otherwise self-insures and avoidspaying insurance premiums on every job it contracts for.
The programs of the MBDA which offer a broad range of assilt-ance services to minorities are commendable and deserve consist-ent government support. I would only note that with our Hispanicpopulation becoming a significant minority, attention should be
182 it, ,..
178
paid to the amount of assistn.ice available through professionalsfluent in Spanish.
I do not suggest that new programs be instituted by the FederalGovernment. Rather, I urge that present programs be adequatelyfunded and promoted.
Finally, let me emphasize again that the more our Hispanic com-munity gains in its ability to carry out business in the americansetting, the greater will be the income and employment opportuni-ties developed. The heart of the entire American economy will beimproved in direct proportion to the improved health of its minor-ity business sectors.
I thank you.Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Font.Our last witness is Dr. Harry Pachon, Executive Director of the
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
STATEMENT OF HARRY PACHON
Dr. PACHON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, CommissionerCorrada.
Madam Chairwoman, in the interest of time, I would like to sum-marize my testimony, and then enter the full testimony in therecord.
NALEO is a national association of Latino elected and appointedofficials. It is a nonpartisan, national (Hispanic) advocacy groupwhich encompasses all segments of the Hispanic community.NALEO neither seeks nor accepts government funding. Instead, itrelies on the Hispanic community and its friends to support its ef-forts to provide a unified voice at the national level. As an organi-zation which has never received government funding, we thereforefeel very objective in our analysis of Federal contracting with His-panic businesses To NALEO, this is a policy area that has not re-ceived sufficient federal attention.
The point of fact_ is that the Federal Government is one of thelargest purchasers of supplies and services in the United Statestoday. In fiscal year 1982, for example, it purchased over $136 bil-lion worth of goods and services. This amount is approximately tentimes the size of the Department of Education's budget and ap-proximately :30 times the amount the administration is proposingto spend on the Jobs Training Partnership Act.
Federal dollars are spent on construction, professional services,base maintenance activities, food services, sophisticated electronicequipment, and, in fact, on almost all goods available in the privatesector. The economic impact of this spending is considerable interms of jobs, moneys spent in the community, and the develop-ment of small and large businesses.
Many of the present Fortune 500 companies, for example, haveand continue to be benefited by Federal contracts.
Hispanic businesses are in a position to contribute a great deal togovernment procurement activities. They have the necessary exper-tise to participate fully in providing goods and services to the Fed-eral agencies. Yet, government programs set up to assist minoritybusinesses are not reaching out equitably into the Hispanic com-munity. For example, in the Small Business Administration's 8(a)
1 8J '
179
program, only 22 percent of the businesses certified by the govern-ment as 8(a) are Hispanic.
NALEO is deeply concerned with the low participation rates forHispanic businesses and firmly believes that these programs mustbecome more responsive to the Hispanic business community.Among the reasons for the lack of participation by Hispanic firmsin this program are: (1) overall limited access by minority firms togovernment procurement; (2) administrative and budgetary limita-tions imposed by SBA, such as steady reductions in the staff re-quired for effective administration of the 8(a) program; and (3)weak performance of SBA's legislatively mandated role underPublic Law 95-507 to advocate the development of small and disad-vantaged business. These problems serve to underscore the difficultyof accomplishing the administration's goal outlined in the December12, 1982 statement on minority business, which called for the expan-sion of 60,000 existing minority businesses and for an increase of60,000 new minority firms.
NALEO is working to bring about the necessary changes. Thesechanges must, however, extend to more than the 8(a) program, asthere are many Hispanic businesses not classified as 8(a) firms thatare also interested in doing Federal contract work.
As part of NALEO's involvement in the area of Hispanic busi-ness procurement with the Federal Government, one of the firstthings that we did was to start a survey requesting data from eachof the Federal departments regarding a couple of specific questions.These questions encompassed the following items:
No. 1, we asked each Federal department their overall contractgoals for fiscal years 1982 and 1983.
No. 2, we asked what the actual dollar amount and percentage ofcontracts awarded to Hispanic firms were under the 8(a) program,and No. 3, we asked what each department was doing insofar as itscompliance procedures to insure subcontracting opportunitiesunder Public Law 95-507.
All departments that we contacted responded to NALEO's in-quiry. After review of these responses, NALEO was appalled at thelack of information on Government procurements with Hispanicbusinesses. Not one department contacted could determine whatpercentage of 8(a) contract dollars went to Hispanic businesses infiscal year 1982, nor could any department furnish data to indicatewhat target goals had been set for contracting with Hispanic busi-nesses in fiscal year 1983.
While we at NALF') realize that Federal departments are notunder specific legislative mandate to gather such dataand thereis some question there, too, if we examine the legislative antece-dants of Public Law 94-311, which asked that Federal agencies im-prove their data on the Hispanic populationwe question the abili-ty of any Federal manager or any agency representative to be ableto respond accurately on his or her efforts on behalf of Hispanicbusinesses.
Based on NALEO's analysis of departmental responses, we findthat the departments simply do not know if Hispanic firms are par-ticipating equitably, if at all, in the 8(a) program. Moreover, by notbeing able to provide such information, departments do not know
1 8 4
180
how they are doing in comparison with one another and, thus,cannot benefit from each other's experience.
The 8(a) program, however, only accounts for 2 percent of overallGovernment procurement. What of the other 98 percent of Federalprocurement activity? The record is the same. In response toNALEO's survey, no Federal department could provide us informa-tion on how Hispanic businesses are participating under the sub-contracting procedures of Public Law 95-507. Federal agencies lackawareness of how Hispanic businesses are faring under this criticalprogram.
In response to this situation, NALEO has established a HispanicBusiness Advisory Committee to help us in developing policy initia-tives to improve procurements in this vital area.
Members of this committ'e are: Hector Barreto, president of theU.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Sal Beltran, president ofComprehensive Technologies; Tom Blackburn-Rodriguez, whoserves as a NALEO consultant; James Casso, legislative assistantto Congressman Esteban Torres; Stephen Den linger, president ofthe Latin American Manufacturers Association; Jesus Chavarria,publisher of Hispanic Business magazine; Jose Antonio Font, presi-dent of the Ibero-American Chamber of Commerce; Joe Garcia, ex-ecutive director of the National Hispanic Association of Construc-tion Enterprises; Juan Gutierrez, president of InterAnierica Re-search Associates; Robert Moreno, senior vice president of Inter-America Research Associates; and Richard Salvatierra, president ofthe Triton Corp.
One of the first things that this Hispanic Advisory Committeedid was to meet with representatives of the Small Business Admin-istration. Some of those same officials testified before this commit-tee today We are developing baseline data to try to make an as-sessment of how Hispanic businesses are participating in the 8(a)program as well as in non-8(a) Federal procurements.
They suggested to us. however, that we have to meet with eachof the Federal departments to discuss the problems that exist in re-gards to Hispanic business procurement. NALEO, therefore, as aresult of its studies, urges that Members of Congress and membersof the Congressional Hispanic Caucus begin considering what canbe done legislatively during the 2d session of the 98th Congress toimprove our knowledge of how the Federal Government is dealingwith Hispanic businesses. Statistical visibility, after all, is ultimate-ly policy visibility. Until we have up-to-date information, we aresimply operating blindly in regards to Federal procurements vis-a-vis Hispanic businesses.
Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testifybefore you. We are open to any questions.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Dr. Pachon.I would like to thank all of the panelists who have remained
here for your patience and your endurance. It has been a long stayand we have had a number of interruptions. But this happenswhen the House is in session because votes do come on the floorand we have to leave. I do appreciate your staying and makingsuch excellent presentations. The information is going to be veryhelpful.
,185
181
We have been joined by another Member of the Congress. To myright is the Honorable Baltasar Corrada of Puerto Rico. At thistime I would like to yield to Congressman Corrada.
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Katie Hall. Iwould like to also commend all the panelists this afternoon fortheir presentation and express the deep appreciation of the Con-gressional Hispanic Caucus to Congresswoman Hall for holdingthese hearings on the occasion of the celebration of the NationalHispanic Heritage Week.
It is often that during this week we attend social functions andceremonies, which are very important, but the celebration of thesepublic hearings is definitely important, appraising this subcommit-tee of the situation of Hispanics throughout the country as it per-tains not only to population and demographic matters and issues,but also social and economic issues as well.
It is often believed, apparently because of our continuous questfor the improvement of our people, that our main efforts aregeared toward the social issues, such as health, welfare and others.Obviously, those are vital matters for the Hispanic community. Butat the same time it is precisely through a larger partcipation of theHispanics in the business activities of our country that we can de-velop the kind of role model that will help other Hispanics who arepoorer improve their plight. I believe that Hispanics don't wanthandouts if they can avoid it. There are, of course, the ve poor,the handicapped, the ill, the elderly, who definitely need these wel-fare programs. But those Hispanics who are physically and mental-ly able to work are looking forward to the opportunity of beingable to have a job, and those who are entrepreneurs and business-men and businesswomen being given the opportunity of participat-ing in the great economic development of our country.
I think that this panel and your presentations have helped a lotin providing a clear picture of this very important dimension of theefforts of Hispanics in sharing in the fruits of our country and par-ticipating as well.
The other day I had, unfortunately, someone .:nention to me,when we were trying to get funds for the bilingual education pro-gram, they said, "Well, yes, it would be nice to get as many mil-lions of dollars for bilingual education as you would want, as longas it is someone else who has to pay for it." I said, "You're wrong,because Hispanics are taxpayers and they do share in the burdensof this country. They are taxayers who as businessmen and busi-nesswomen have job-creating enterprises. They are hard workingas well." So we do pay the price through taxes when our peoplehave the opportunity of being able to develop their business, just aswe pay also our price when we share in the defense of our country.
Just last week, one of four U.S. Marines who were killed in Leba-non was a Hispanic, a constituent of mine, Pedro Ramos fromPuerto Rico. So we are all over the place in this country, whetherit is national defense, whether it is business, whether it is govern-ment and political activity, education and so on. I think these pro-grams that you have alluded to in your presentations are vital sothat Hispancis will have also a strong leadership role in the busi-ness community of our country. I commend you fer your presenta-tions.
/86
182
Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Congressman. Very well stated.I have to agree with you. We don't feel reluctant at all to ask for
programs and for help, because all of us make this country great.We all pay taxes. A lot of times you hear people talking and youwould think that this country is great just because one group con-tributes. But America is the greatest nation in the world becausepeople from throughout this world came and worked hard, theypay taxes, and we make it great. So we feel very honored to takethis time to hear from the Hispanic community and to learn moreabout the problems and the needs and what we can do here to help.Thank you so very much, Congressman.
I have a question that I would like to ask Dr. Pachon. In youropinion, what can the Congress and the leaders of the Hispaniccommunity do in a unified effort to bring about more improve-ments of Hispanic businesses?
Dr. PACHON. From NALEO's perspective, I think one of the firstthings we can do is to start providing better information on howthese procurements are faring in regards to different ethnic com-munities.
For example, to give you a hypothetical case, we could have twofirms dominating the 8(a) process in a particular Federal agency, orwe have 20 firms. Within those 20 firms we don't know how manyare minority owned by sub-group, insofar as what type of minor-ities. So we just need better management information.
I think this fits in very well with the administration's emphasison improved management efficiency. If we are trying to get pro-grams out that impact on the Hispanic community, we need toknow how these programs are faring. That is something that Con-gress can do.
Mrs. HALL. OK. Thank you very much.Mr. Chavarria, I have a question I wanted to ask you. Do you
feel that the current administration is doing as much as possible oras much as should be done to promote the Hispanic businesses?
Mr. CHAVARRIA. Madam Chairwoman, being consistent withwhat Dr. Pachon just indicated, it is very difficult to answer thatquestion because there is no data base against which we can holdaccountable, either this administration or past administrations, asto what they have done or want to do in this area.
I think I would attach a "rider" to what Dr. Pachon has just in-dicated by saying we cannot really discuss these issues intelligentlyunless we have an accurate line of information. We cannot, inturn, hold the Federal Government accountable for any of its goalsin the area of minority business unless that information is availa-ble.
So what we have today is a very sad situation, where one admin-istration or another is indicating time and time again what theirgoals are and what it is they are trying to do for minority business,and at the same time there is no machinery of compliance that isbeing developed. So we cannot hold the Federal Government, andparticularly the Federal agencies charged with these missions, ac-countable for what they are doing. So it is a situation which I amsure you are very familiar with.
'
i8 i
183
I think to the extent we are able to inform our constituenciesabout this situation, we might be able to look for some future rem-edies.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much.Mr. Font, would you like to respond to that, also?Mr. FONT. Very briefly, I would simply say that keeping a bal-
ance of progression with respect to Hispanics' participating in theestablishment, because it works when people pull in the same di-rection, whether working in Congress or working in Federal agen-cies or private sector groups or to the businessmen themselves orin the press. We tend to help each other. This type of information,where it is not available, all the people can try to make it availa-ble.
So the answer is yes, we need friends in every place, at everylev& to pool resources, so that we can best know where we'regoing and how to do it.
Mrs. HALL. Very good.Congressman, do you have further questions or comments?Mr. CORRADA. No, thank you, Chairwoman Hall.Mrs. HALL. Thank you.I would like to again thank all of you for coming, for staying,
and for your wonderful presentations. I feel that all of us feelstronger and have a much better understanding of the needs andproblems of Hispanic businesses because of your presentationstoday. I have been able to get a lot of information and we are goingto share this with all of the members of this committee, includingthose who were not able to be here because of obligations over atthe House, which is in session.
Of course, personally I plan to go back to my district and sharethis information and to conduct some workshops. I would invitesome of you to come in and to provide more information. I have alot of Hispanic businesses, and many of them do extremely well.But I think, with this information, many of them could even dobetter. We thank you so very much.
We would like to give the opportunity to the minority staff per-sons here to have information inserted in the minutes, or included.
Ms. SOELLE. We would like to submit some questions for therecord, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much. You will be given that permis-sion.
Again, we want to thank all of you for coming. We are going tohave hearings tomorrow starting at 10 o'clock, and hopefully wewill not have as many votes and, therefore, have less disruptions.Thank you so very much.
The hearing is adjourned.[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, September 15, 1983.]
188
EMPLOYMENT IN THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1983
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION,
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:40 a.m.,in room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Katie Hall, pre-siding.
Mrs. HALL. The subcommittee will come to order at this time,and the subcommittee would like to thank each person for attend-ing this session. This is our third day of hearings on Hispanic de-mography.
We would especially like to welcome our panel of witnesses. Thismorning we have a lot of very distinguished guests as witnesses. Iwould like, first, to welcome everyone who has come and to reallythank you from our hearts for your participation, for your efforts,for everything you have done, and for your endurance. Some of youhave been with us for 3 days, and we certainly do appreciate that.
Today, these hearings will provide the subcommittee with soundand forthright testimony that will be extremely useful in our poli-cymaking decisions in the future here in the House of Representa-tives. This morning our hearings will focus on the issue of employ-ment in the Hispanic community of the United States. We allknow that unemployment is one of the most important issuesfacing America today.
According to census data produced by the Bureau of the U.S.Census in Tuesday's hearings, Hispanic unemployment rates areabout 11/2 times that of non-Hispanics. Unemployment among His-panics has climbed from 8.3 percent in 1979 to 13.8 percent in 1982.These high unemployment rates among Hispanics are devastating.
President Reagan has articulated a national commitment to aidthe Hispanic community, yet Hispanic unemployment continues toincrease, and it skyrockets 11/2 times that of non-Hispanic employ-ment. Of course, Hispanics clearly continue to suffer from the cur-rent recession, as do most Americans who are unemployed.
With those disturbing words, we welcome this panel of very dis-tinguished persons, and we wish to start with the governor of NewMexico, who has come to Washington to participate and help uswith these endeavors. At this time, it is my pleasure to welcomeHon. Tony Anaya, Governor of the State of New Mexico.
(185)
18J
186
STATEMENT OF' 110N. TONEY ANAYA, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NEWMEXICO
Governor ANAYA. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much forthe opportunity to be here and present some testimony today. Iwould like, first of all, to ask permission that my entire statementbe submitted for the record, and I will attempt to summarize it.
Mrs. HALL Without objection, so ordered.Governor ANAYA. You have already pointed out some of the
gruesome statistics, and I will not belabor the point by repeatingthe same statistics with respect to unemployment among Hispanicsbut simply to underscore that the unemployment rate among His-panics is very definitely considerably higher than the national un-employment rate. I would also underscore that unemploymentamong Hispanic youth is almost 30 percent for those in the agegroup of 16 to 19 years.
In New Mexico, we have an unemployment rate of 13.2 percent,which compares to the overall unemployment rate of 9.2 percent, afull four percentage points higher for Hispanics. Hispanic youthsuffered a staggering 32.2 percent unemployment rate in my State.
The national unemployment situation for Hispanics continues toworsen. We hear a lot about how the employment situation is im-proving for Americans, if in fact it is, it certainly has not trickleddown to the Hispanics of this country. In mid-1979, the unemploy-ment rate for Hispanics was 8 percent. It rose to 10 percent in1980-81, and over 13 percent in 1982. This spring, I atn advised, itreached almost 14 percent. The difference between Hispanic andoverall unemployment rates continues to widen.
The recent recession, which affected the Nation and New Mexico,has had a severe impact on Hispanic groups. Less than a quarter ofHispanic males are employed in white-collar jobs or professional,technical, sales, and clerical occupations, where the unemploymentrate is less than 5 percent. On the other hand, half of Hispanicmales are in craft, assembly, and machine-operator jobs, with un-employment rates above 12 percent. Similarly, Hispanic femalesare concentrated in such jobs as manufacturing assembly, with acurrent unemployment rate of over 15 percent.
In New Mexico, the Hispanics make up a large proportion of ourconstruction work force, which lost thousands of jobs as Federalpolicies drove up interest rates. Our mining industry has had tre-mendous job losses as the recession worsened. Hispanics make upover half of our copper mining work force, where the unemploy-ment rate reached 33 percent earlier this year. Two-fifths of all%orkers in our alr,ost dormant uranium industry are Hispanics,where 5.00 jobs ha% e been lost in the last three years, and the un-employment rate in the uranium industry is almost at 100 percentnow.
Hispanics also make up a large number of the employees in coal,oil, and gas and potash mining, all of which are experiencing majorproblems and, in some cases, almost disaster.
The outlook for the future is not good for Hispanic employment,unless there can be retraining. The Department of Labor showsover 13 million new white-collar jobs expected in the United Statesby 1990, compared to 8 million blue-collar jobs and 4' /z million
187
service jobs. But as I mentioned before, less than a quarter of His-panic males are in white-collar work. In New Mexico, we see rela-tively little job growth in Hispanic-concentrated employment indus-tries, such as mining and government. On the other hand, weexpect major increases in electronics and other types of manufac-turing and health services. Less than one-fifth of our existing elec-tronic technician work force is Hispanic. Similar statistics exist insuch medical fields as laboratory technicians and technologists,where Hispanic youth and the unemployeed need to be trained orretrained in these areas of future growth.
The reemployment prospects for those affected are most unfavor-able. For most of them, their work experience has been highly spe-cialized within the industry they serve. They are now displaced byeconomic factors, by mechanization and automation. They are un-prepared to enter the job market in our emerging high-technologyindustry, such as precision electronics manufacture and computertechnology for a growing medical field.
They lack the experience and background to compete in theskilled trades. Even a resurging economy will not restore theirrightful place in the labor force. Without resources of their own,there must be positive intervention made on their behalf that willenable them to again become productive workers and to rejoin themainstream of economic progress.
In view of the immediate need for employment assistance, I rec-ommend your support for congressional jobs bill legislation thatwill, first of all, fund major infrastructure projects. This will notonly provide the necessary basic foundation for overall economicdevelopment but will also provide jobs for Hispanics and all othersin the construction industry and serve as support to the turn-around in this industry.
Second, long-term job training efforts are needed to provide Hispanics an opportunity to participate more fully in the labor forceduring coming years. Training under the Job Training PartnershipAct should be greatly expanded and focus on jobs that can be ex-pected actually to exist in future years. National forecast data fromthe Department of Labor is available. Reliable occupational projec-tions, which are not currently funded for States, are needed toselect more realistic local training courses. Most importantly, addi-tional funds are needed for research, for training programs, and forfinancial assistance to enrollees during training.
The Jobs Training Partnership Act is a step in uniting the pri-vate sector and the State to work on the unemployment problem.In order to fill these jobs that are being created in the high-tech-nology industries, I would like to propose that additional funds beallocated for the following purposes: (I A task force composed ofprivate industry to research and focus on jobs that are actuallygoing to exist in the future; (2) Coordinate with education and voca-tional training to provide the necessary educational and vocationalskills to fill the new jobs; (3 Determine which jobs will be obsoletein the future and start retraining programs for the individuals inthese occupations.
I have also listed a number of other recommendations in my pre-pared testimony, including relocation allowances for the retrained,unemployment insurance benefits for retraining without penalty, a
191
188
national job bank listing shortage occupations, a detailed skill in-ventory of displaced workers to identify all relevant skills theyhave for use in a new occupation, as well as many other recommen-dations that in the interest of time I will summarize very quicklyby making one other point.
What concerns many of us at the State level and concerns, I amsure, every Hispanic is the reordering of priorities that has gone onat the national level in the past 21/2 to 3 years, in terms of whereour national resources are going to be focused. We have seen adrying up at the State level, and it certainly has had an impact onevery New Mexican but particularly on the disadvantaged. Withour 37 percent Hispanic population, there certainly has been an ad-verse impact on Hispanics. We see a drying up of Federal revenuesources for virtually every domestic program, and yet an unseem-ing and unlimited amount of money being spent in a defense pro-gram of which many ha "e core ,o question the wisdom.
I would encourage this subcommittee and would encourage theCongress to take a look at the tremendous deficits that are beingleft, that are creating problems for us at the State and local levels,a deficit that cannot be blamed, as some in the national adminis-tratior would try, on domestic programs but, instead, has to beblamed on unrestrained defense expenditures.
I would hope that this subcommittee and the Congress wouldstart shifting the priorities to domestic programs, such as job train-ing and retraining, and the need to develop infrastructures, theneed to provide a better educational system, and I would makesome additional comments with respect to education in my pre-pared statement, with particular emphasis on the need for an in-crease in funding that would concentrate on math, sciences, and bi-lingual education. If these efforts were to be undertaken, I thinkthat not only the needs and concerns of Hispanics but of all Ameri-cans would be more properly addressed than the way in which wehave been going for recent years in this country. That, in my judg-ment and in the judgment of many other governors and the judg-ment of Hispanics and other disadvantaged in this country, is a di-rection which, if left unchecked, this country is going that will leadto disaster for minorities and specifically for Hispanics.
I would encourage the committee and this Congress to help in re-ordering the priorities as to where our tax dollar; are going to bespent o that we do not have the growing gap that is obviouslythere day of forming two Americas: one for the rich and one forthe p r. Again, thank you very much for the opportunity topreset this testimony. I will be happy to respond to any questior.s.
Mrs. Thank you, Governor. We certainly are honored byyour presence. We thank you for your presentation. I have to agreewith you, I think it is time that we reorder priorities and makesure that people programs, the things which are designed really toimprove the lives of the people, be considered in this Congress.
At this time, I would like to introduce two Members who havejoined us. To my right, we have the Honorable Esteban Torres ofCalifornia. Congressman Torres serves on the House Banking, Fi-nance and Urban Affairs Committee. Next to Congressman Torres,we have the Honorable Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is amember of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On my
192
189
left is Mr. Scott Pastrick, who is our staff director, and other per-sons here with me include the minority staff director, the minoritycounsel, and others who work with us to make the process possible.
I would like to yield to Congressman Torres.[The statement of Governor Anaya follows:)
STATEMENT OF GOvERNOR TONE' ANAVA oN EMPLOVNIENT
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Census and Population. Myname lb Toney Anaya and I .1111 Conernor of the great State of Nen Mexico. I appre-ciate your invitation and the opportunity to appt-ar before the Census and Populafun Subcommittee to discuss the employment mfaatann in the Hispanic communityand the need for an immediate special employment and training bill. I commendyou for holding these hearings in conjunction with the Congress:mat HispanicCaucus to discuss important issues affecting the Hispanic community
I would like to begin by presenting some statistics indicating the depth of theproblem at both the national level and in Nen Mexico In my own State. %%Inch as 3:percent Hispanic. these data point out the importance of special government pro-grams and some suggested features %%latch I nail mention at the conclusion of my.remarks.
The V'S'_ .11111(411 average national unemployment rate for Ilisparucs war. I3.S per-cent This olAmusly compares quite unfavorably with the overall national unmployment rate of 9: percent and an unemployment rate among %%lutes of fi per-cent Inudently. for Ile:panics Ili to 19 years old the unemployment rate was 29.9percent.
In Nen Mexico. we had a monthly average of 22010 unemployed Hispanics mI9s2 for a l 2 percent rate compared to our overall unemployment rate of 9.2 per-cent Our Ilispanic youth suffered a staggering 32.2 percent unemployment rate.
The national unemployment situation for Hispanics has worsened steadily mrecent years The rate was !.1.0 percent in mid-I979. rose to 10 percent in 19S0 and19SI. over 13 percent in I9s2. and has reached nearly II percent this spring. Thedifference between Hispanic and overall unemployment rate has widened over thesame period.
The recent recession. which has affected the Nation and New Mexico has had asevere impact on Hispanic groups Less than .1 quarter of Hispanic males are em-ployed in %%hate collar jobs of professional. technical. sales and clerical occupations%%here the unemployment raze is It than 5 percent On the other hand. half ofHispanic males are in craft. assembly and machine operator jobs with unemploy-ment rates above 12 percent Similarly. Hispanic females are concentrated in opera-tive jobs ouch as manufacturing assembly with .1 current unemployment rate of I:1percent.
In Nen Mexico. Hispanics make up a large proportion of our construction work-force, which lost thousands of jobs as Federal policies drove up interest rates Ourmimng industry has had tremendous job losses as the recession worsned Hispanicsmake up over half of our copper naming workforce. where the unemployment ratereached percent earlier this year. Two-fifths of all workers in our almost dormanturanium industry are Hispanic. %%here 3S100 jobs have been lost in the last threeyears flit:panics also make up a large number of the employees in coal oil and gas.and potaih n g, all of which are experiencing major problems.
The outlook for the future is not good for Hispanic employment unless they canbe retrained. The Department of Labor shows over Ft million new white collar jobsexpected in the United States by 1990. compared to million blue collar and l'mullion service jobs. But. as I mentioned before. less than a quarter of Hispanicmales are in white collar work.
In New Mexico. we see relatively little job growth in Ihspanicconcentrated em-ployment industries such as mining and government On the other hand. we expectmajor increases in electromcs and other high tech manufacturing and health sem.ices. Less than a fifth of our existing electronic technician workforce as HispanicSimilar st.stistics exist in such medical fields as laboratory technicians and technolo-gists. Our Ihspanic youth and unemployed need to be trained or retrained in theseareas of future growth.
The reemployment prospects for those affected are most unfavorable For most ofthem. their work experience has been highly specialized within the industry theyserved Now displaced by economic factors. by mechanization and automation. theyare unprepared to enter the job market in our emerging high technology industries.such as precimon electronics manufacture and computer technology, or in the grow
24444 0 sa 493
190
mg medical field. They lack the experience and background to compete in theskilled trades. In this circumstance, even a resurgent economy will not restore theirnghtful place in the labor force. Without resources of their own, there must becomepositive intervention made on their behalf that will enable them to again becomeproductive workers and to rejoin the mainstream of economic progress.
In view of the immediate need for employment assistance. I recommend your sup-port for congressional jobs bill legislation that will. first of all. fund major infra-structure projects. This will not only provide the necessary basic foundation foroverall economic development, but well also provide jobs for Hispanics and all othersan the construction industry and serve as support to the turnaround in this indus-try.
Secondly. long term job training efforts are needed to prot ide Hispanics an oppor-tunity to more fully participate in the labor force during coming years. Trainingunder the job training partnership act should be greatly expanded and focus on jobsthat can be expected to actually exist in future years. National forecast data fromthe Department of Labor is available. Reliable occupational projections, which arenot currently funded for States. are needed to select more realistic local trainingcourses. Most importantly. additional funds are needed for research, for trainingprograms. and for financial assistance to enrollees during training.
The Jobs Training Partnership Act is a step in uniting the private sector and theState to work on the unemployment problem. In order to fill new jobs that are beingcreated in the high technology industries. fix . data processing. medicine. robotics.and the spin-off occupations from those industries.: I would like to propose addition-al funds be allocated for the following purposes:
I. A task force composed of private industry to research and focus on jobs that areactually going to exist in the future.
2. Coordinate with education and vocational training to provide the necessaryeducational and vocational skills to fill the new jobs.
Determine which jobs will be obsolete in the future and start retry g pro-grams for the individuals in these occupations.
Some possible national employment programs that should be considered m addi-tion to expanded funding on the Jobs Training Partnership Act include.
I. Relocation allowances for the retrained Even with a job. they may not be ableto move. Payments are needed for travel. temporary housing at their new site, andfinancing to sell their old home, if needed.
2. Unemployment insurance benefits should be increased and used for retrainingwithout penalty Unemployment is no longer just a short term situation
3. A national job bank listing shortage occupations in every State and metropoli-tan area in an accessible up-todate computer system Continuing surveys by Feder-al and State agencies will need to be done.
4. A detailed skill inventory of displaced workers to identify all relevant skillsthey hate for use in a new occupation I understand such a system has been imple-mented on a pilot trial basis
5. Jobs are being exported to other countries where both materials and labor costLes than here at home Intestments here in human capital. together with a stronger economy. can result in pmfuent ity increases which will help strengthen USgoods for G.S markets
G. We need to impress on the ainumstration that the Humphrey -Hawkins Actneeds to be implemented. contrary to the moving away seen in the last severalyears. monetary and fiscal policies must be pursued that will give the economy vigorous growth, then. structural programs should be pursued so that inflation is con-tained This is where employment and training programs are so necessary Whenthe unemployed are trained and In-come employed. many of our problems will be.:immated, or at least, lessened across the spectrum of economic and social issues
In any consideration of long term jobpreparation training. educational programsand objectates become fundamental I am aware that pr ary responsibility for edu-cation rests with the Stec, and local communities. Nevertheless. the Federal Gov-ernment has .1 basic and essential role There st be no further cutbacks in edueanonal funds proposed at the national level Rather. a new appraisal of existingneeds should be made with .1 view toward increased funding where indicated
Federal limitations on special Ito:tling for bilingual education have severelypacted on our ability to solve this continuing problem
Cutbacks in the school lunch program have denied adequate nutrition to thosewho no longer qualify. affecting particularly the Hispanic youth and. to that extent.affecting their ability to learn.
Restrictions on underwriting the cost of new facilities for educational purposesserve to limit the advancement of those people most affected. the disadvantaged
194
191
Lack of a comprehensive vocational program at the national level has limited edu-cational opportunities for those disadvantaged persons who would be willing to relo-cate to other areas where jobs may be found.
We have experienced cutbacks in social programs and education in the local com-munities at the expense of great!y increased defense budgets We feel that the prin-cipal responsibility belongs to us in our respective communities. The Federal Gov-ernment. however, must also play a role and accept its responsibility to the Statesby increasing funding rather than cutting back.
Cyclical unemployment which is occurring in the Hispanic community persistssince they traditionally have been at the bottom rung of the career ladder, being theiast to enter and the first to be terminated in times of recession or depression.
With increased and proper funding concentrating on math. science and bilingualeducation. the Hispanic community iuld be prepared to compete for jobs createdby the growth in electronics. computer technology, solar energy and others.
We need to take a look at how our Federal budgetary policies are having a con-tinuing unfavorable effect on jobs for Hispanics and for all Americans generally. De-fense spending, and I believe in a strong national defense, contains billions of dol-lars for unnecessary weapon systems. waste, and unjustified cost over-runs. At thesame time, critical domestic programs are being reduced. As unemployment, and es-pecially long-term structural unemployment in basic industries rises. we have amuch greater need for employment and training programs. Instead. we find wagecutbacks of billions of dollars in our major manpower programs. Just in NewMexico alone. we are going from a S50 million peak in Federal CETA funds to anexpected SlS million under the new Jobs Training Partnership Act programs. Atthe same time our unemployment has jumped, and our basic mining industries havesuffered major reductions, some of which they will never recover from.
The States do not have the financial resources to provide this retraining and em-ployment. Private industry will hire those qualified, but they cannot provide imme-diate training and relocation for the displaced or unskilled. Only the Federal Gov-ernment can do so.
Federal deficits should not be an excuse for not funding these employment pro-grams. Let's reduce unnecessary defense spending and use the proceeds to fund acomprehensive jobs program. The long-term viability of our entire economy shouldnot be hostage to misguided short-term budgetary policies.
I am sure working together Congress, the State. the administration, and suchgroups as the Hispanic coalitioncan find ways to retrain and re-employ all Ameri-cans as we move through this time of industrial transition of our economy.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ESTEBAN TORRES. A REPRESENTATIVEFROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. TORRES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for yielding.First, I would like to thank the Governor for his statement and
also look in anticipation for the rest of the panelists and the im-pressive statements that I am sure they will deliver before us. Iwould like to take this brief time to make an opening statement forthe record by first of all commending Representative Katie Hall,the chairwoman of the Census and Population Subcommittee, forconducting the series of hearings this week on issues of particularimportance to the Hispanic community.
National Hispanic Heritage Week affords us all an opportunityto take an indepth look at the condition of Hispanics in Americatoday. Unfortunately, "Kika" de la Garza, who was to cochair thishearing with us, is unable to be with us because of illness, and Iwill read a brief statement from him for the record following myown.
This meeting will focus, as you have already heard from thechairwoman and Governor Anaya, on employment in the Hispaniccommunity, on ways to improve the skills of Hispanic workers, howthe jobs bill will help provide employment opportunities, and whatwe in Congress can do to bring down the staggering levels of His-
-11;9 5
192
panic unemployment. Clearly, Hispanics are becoming an increas-ingly important sector in the U.S. labor force. Unfortunately, His-panic workers tend to be concentrated in those occupations whichare characterized by low pay and low skills,
The Governor's statement that he just made addressed the JobsTraining Partnership Act. This act is expected to be fully effectivein a few short weeks, and it is hoped that it will make a significantcontribution toward resolving training deficiencies of Hispanicworkers. H.R. 1036, the Community Renewal Employment Act, isanother measure that promises to provide employment opportuni-ties to those individuals who have had the most difficulty in secur-ing jobs.
I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I look forward to its passage inthe near future. If this proposal is funded at the authorized level,over 500,000 jobless persons could be employed. Additional employ-ment measures will be needed, of course, but this bill is a start inalleviating the problems of the long-term unemployed.
As we listen to testimony this morning, we should get a goodidea of what incentives Congress hrs already taken on this criticalissue of Hispanic unemployment, how successful these measureshave been, and how great a cost, if you will, remains to be recog-nized for this particular problem. We have to understand to afuller extent what remains to be done in the area of policy develop-ment and that is why we look forward to hearing your testimony.
We have a distinguished list of panelists here who will enlightenus on this topic. I want to welcome all of you, and I look forward toyour comments.
I would like very quickly to read for the record Congressman"Kika" de la Garza s statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. E. -KIKA" de In GARZA. A U.S.REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. DE LA GARZA. The current economic recovery the administra-tion says is now underway is still not being felt by the Hispaniccommunity. Unemployment rates are higher than the nationalaverage and continue to plague Hispanics throughout the country.Without exception, in counties and cities with significant concen-trations of Hispanics, the unemployment rate for our people ishigher than the average rate.
Currently, the Department of Labor reports that the national un-employment rate last month was 9.5. For Hispanics the figure was12.9. For the month before that, the figure for Hispanics was 12.3.So things are getting worse for Hispanics, not better.
Wherever the recovery reportedly is occurringand I presumethe administration means by "recovery" that jobs are being cre-atedit is not happening in the Hispanic community. So now, as itreconvenes, Congress again must address the issue that this admin-istration has disregarded for its first 21/2 years and has done littleabout nor cared about, and that is jobs for people.
After all, all our fellow citizens want is `J work. Let us put themto work. There are things that have to be done in this country,roads need repair, our bridges need to be strengthened, waterworksand dams need to be rebuilt. Sewer and water mains in our largest
1 9 6
193
cities are rupturing daily. causing economic dislocation. In passinga comprehensive jobs bill that would include the country's ruralareas where our farmers have just finished going through a death-ly drought that has ravaged the countryside, we would be repairingnot only the internal structure of our country but the internaldamage that unemployment is causing individual families.
Let us look at the numbers. In San Diego, unemployment amongHispanics is 20.4 percent. In Chicago, 18.1 percent. In the metro-politan area of Riverside, San Bernardino, just east of Los Angeles,the unemployment rate stands at 17.7 percent. Remember, remem-ber, the national average is 9.5. But these are statistics that couldeasily lose their meaning.
What these numbers mean for Hispanic families throughout thecountry is that schoolchildren are starting the school year withoutclothes and the proper supplies this fall. It means that families arelosing their homes and cars are being repossessed, and it meansthat some people who are sick and who depend on a working indi-vidual in the family to buy their medicines are not getting thosemedicines. And other equally important things that will affect thefuture, things such as credit ratings that families have struggled tobuild over the years, are being destroyed.
This is the real national story of unemployment. It is a story ofpain and a story of lack of opportunity. For some areas, figures ofunemployment are actually even worse. In some rural counties, theunemployment rate among Hispanics can shoot as high as 40 per-cent. That means four out of every 10 people in that area are notworking. A review of these figures as provided by the Govern-mentand they can indeed be much higheris a litany of unhap-piness that continues to sew discontent.
Those of you here present today must at the proper time invokethe pressure that our collective political presence can bring to bear.That time will come when Congress acts anew to pass a meaningfuljobs program that addresses the new issues of unemployment. Jobslost because of computerization, jobs lost because of intense foreigncompetition, jobs lost because of a shift in national economic focusfrom some traditional regions to others.
As we delve into these areas today, let us remind ourselves ofwhat Lyndon Johnson once said about what it is that the peoplewant. People want simple things, he said. They want a roof overtheir heads, they want a job to work at to provide for their fami-lies. and they want educational opportunities for their family. If wecan strive to do these things, we can hope to secure the progress ofour people and the progress of the country as a result.
Thank you.Mrs. HALL. Thank you.I would like to recognize at this time the Congressman from New
Mexico, Congressman Richardson.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM B. RICHARDSON. A U.S.REPRESENTATIVE FROM TIIE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.I want to commend you for holding these hearings. I think that
whether you are being political or nonpolitical, the figures of your
194
subcommittee show the nonpartisan statistical base for which weare having this hearing. Governor Anaya, our first witness, is lead-ing Hispanics in this country not just towa. d full political partici-pation but toward a higher economic profile. Madam Chairwoman,as you know this is Hispanic Heritage Week. In The White House Iwould like to call it Hispanic Wooing Week.
I say this because the statistics that you have provided and thatwe have been hearing show that the job situation for Hispanics justgets worse every day. I think this administration, which is blatant-ly trying to be very political. I think their goal is to increase His-panic voting support for the President from the 25 percent he gotin the last election to a figure that will be a little higher, becausehe has almost written off the Black constituency and almost all therest of the minority and poor constituency of this country. So clear-ly his goal, I think, is political.
All we have to do is look at these statistics that CongressmanTorres and Governor Anaya have talked about. The poverty level,is the one that concerns me the most. Since the President has beenin office, 2.3 million Hispanics were living below the poverty level.Today, 4.9 million Hispanics are living in poverty. I am very disap-pointed in the statistics which show 15 percent unemploymentamong Hispanics, which is considerably higher than the nationalaverage. In this calendar year, Hispanic unemployment increasedto 50 percent higher than the national average.
I think another telling statistic for the future is that Hispanicunemployment among youth is 80 percent higher than non-His-panic youth. So I do not want to just sit here and recognize the im-portance of Hispanic Heritage Week. Yes, the cultural side is im-portant, and we must glorify that. But I think what you are doinghere and what we are discussing here are jobs and economic jus-tice. For this reason, I am very interested in wanting to hear fromour distinguished witnesses, and I would hope that we not look atthe traditional job-creating mechanisms of the past.
We have talked about the shift from a manufacturing society toa high-tech society. We cannot create just Government programs tostart jobs. I think we have to look at the private sector as well.That is what we have to fight here in Congress to improve tradi-tional employment programs and to enact new and innovative jobtraining program. So I hope that will be the focus of this hearing.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Congressman Richardson.Governor, we realize that you have a very busy schedule and
that it is possible you will have to leave us before too long. At thistime, we would like to ask you a few questions.
How do you think the Partnership Act will impact in NewMexico?
Governor ANAYA. As the Chair is aware, we are just now startingto implement it, getting ready for the new budget cycle and to startworking under the Job Partnership Training Act. I will say onegood comment and one adverse comment about it.
The good comment is that I feel that it will give me, as governor,the additional flexibility I think I think is important to be able totry to formulate the kind of training programs that we need to ad-dress the problems in New Mexico. The difficulty with it is that ithas been shifted over from the old CETA program to JTPA fund-
1 9* ,
195
ingand that is what I was alluding to in my earlier remarks.Funding in New Mexico was slashed from $50 million to $18 mil-lion, Again, this is apparently one of those New Federalism ap-proaches. It is up to us; we have been given the responsibility butwith no money to fund it.
The program at this juncture, without any experience under it, Iwould endorse. But as I indicated in my earlier remarks, the needfor resources goes with it. Cutting it from $50 million to $18 mil-lion is not, in my judgment, a commitment that we in fact want todo something about training in this country.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you. I have another question. At the presenttime, the Congress is considering another legislative proposal, onedesigned to create jobs, retraining, and training in this country,known as the Hawkins bill by many. The bill would allocate $11billion to create 1 million jobs immediately, putting emphasis onthe infrastructureand you did mention the infrastructure.
How do you feel about that legislation? I am sure that you are insupport. Do you see this as a possible solution to at least some ofthe problems? We know that it is not a panacea. How do you seethis, in terms of helping people in your State?
Governor ANAYA. I am glad the question was raised. I will notsay it is a panacea, and I think I would support it. I think it is verydefinitely the kind of program that helps and would help verymuch in the State of New Mexico. Again in my earlier comments, Ialluded to the need to improve the infrastructure. It is one of thethings that we are trying to do in New Mexico, and I am sure thestory can be told in every other State.
In New Mexico, we have not had much industry in the past. Wehave been limited primarily to the development of our natural re-sources, the development of oil and gas and coal and uranium.What we need to continue in those areas, that is not going to bethe salvation for our State. We have been 42d in per capita income,and we have always been on the bottom end of per capita income.The only way we are going to improve the quality of life for NewMexicans is by diversifying our economy, and that sounds great.We have a State in which we are going to be able to track hightechnology, and we are making many steps in that direction.
Thanks to the Federal research laboratories, there is Los AlamosNational Laboratory, Sandia, Kirtland, White Sands, Holloman.We have more high-tech research and development going on in ourState on a per capita basis than in any other State in the country.But yet we have not been able to translate that into jobs. And I saythat to make two very quick points.
One reason is, we do not have the infrastructure. We do not havethe necessities that Congressman Torres mentioned, reading Con-gressman de la Garza's statement. We do not have the roads andbridges and sewer systems and water systems and curbs and gut-ters and all the rest of the infrastructure that is necessary to bringin industry. So I would support that legislation to help us accom-plish two goals: one is to create more immediate jobs, and they aretraditionally the kind of jobs that Hispanics have been found ingreater numbers, but more importantly to create the basis to at-tract additional industry.
19.9
196
I would not want to lose the other side of that equation that wetalked about in Humphrey-Hawkins. The other side of the equationthat also related to the need for training and retraining and educa-tional programs that will help prepare Hispanics to share in thehigh-technology high-paying jobs.
Mrs. HALL. Very good. My final question is this. Yesterday, wehad the assistant director of the Small Business administration tes-tify before this committee. He discussed the millions of dollars inset-asides for minorities that have been made available by theReagan administration. In your State, have you realized any realhelp in terms of providing jobs from SBA loans and small business-es?
Governor ANAYA. We have not yet, but he has made that refer-ence to me, and I have told him that I will he over there to pick itup. In fairness to him and the SBA, in talking to the deputy direc-tor, he was committed to help us in New Mexico, and we aretaking some initiative, We are going to take advantage of whateveris available, and I believe that the director and deputy directorthemselves are sincere in wanting to get this money out We aregoing to be working with them to make sure that it gets out inwhatever record numbers we can without our State, but theirrecord in the past has not been a good one.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Governor. At this time, I would like togive my colleagues the opportunity to ask questions. CongressmanTorres?
Mr. TORRES. Madam Chairwoman, in light of the Governor'spressing schedule, I would yield my time.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you. Congressman Richardson?Mr. RICHARDSON. I have no questions.Mrs. HALL. Governor, we thank you for your excellent presenta-
tion, and we are indeed honored to have you with us. We wouldlike to work with you, and I am sure that what we have done inour hearings the last 3 days will help us make very sound policydecisions here in the Congress, and we hope we can solve many ofour problems. Stay in touch, and thank you again.
Governor ANAYA. Thank you very much. We will stay in touch.The only reason I will be leaving now is that I have some othercongressional hearings before which I must testify, and I am tryingto make the best possible use of my time while I am here.
Mrs. HALL. We appreciate that. Thank you, Governor.We have a list of very distinguished persons to testify this morn-
ing, including Dr. Fred Romero of the U.S. Department of Labor;Dr. Carol Jusenius, an economist with the Commission on Employ-ment Policy; Mr. Raul Yzaguirre, president, National Council of LaRaza; Mr. Michael Borrero, executive director, National PuertoRican Forum, Inc.; and Mr. Petro Garza, executive director, SER-Jobs for Progress,
At this time, it is our pleasure to present to you, Dr. Carol Jusen-ius, economist, Commission on Employment Policy.
STATEMENT OF CAROL JUSENIUS, ECONOMIST, NATIONALCOMMISSION FOR EMPLOYMENT POLICY
MS. JUSENIUS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
197
I would like to request that my testimony be submitted for therecord, and at this time I would like to summarize my remarks.
Mrs. HALL. Without objection, so ordered.Ms Just-maus. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be a
part of this panel on Hispanics and their position in the jobmarket This is a critical topic, not just for Hispanics but for theNation as a whole. As the Hispanic community continues toemerge as a significant part of the population, the need to improveits economic well-being is becoming increasingly important to theentire economy.
My comments are based largely on work undertaken by the Na-tional Commission for Employment Policy [NCEPI. The Commis-sion was created by Congress in 1973 as part of the ComprehensiveEmployment and Training Act. It will be continued under JTPA.
The Commission is directed by the law to provide information tothe Congress and the President on employment problems in thiscountry and how policies can be made more effective in alleviatingthem.
In 191, the Commission undertook a major research effort onthe problems of Hispanics in the job market. The purposes were,first, to identif!, the problem; second, to determine the reasons forthose problems; and third, to investigate the effectiveness of var-ious policies and programs in alleviating the problem. The resultsof this research effort are contained in a report, "Hispanics andJobs: Barriers to Progress."
The Commission found that on two important measures of agroup's labor market position, income, and unemployment, His-panics have historically been right between blacks and whites. Interms of school dropout rates, however, Hispanics' position is quitebad Their school dropout rate is 11/2 times that of blacks and :3times that of whites.
But the Commission also found that grouping Hispanics in thismanner results in a certain loss of information, because the variousHispanic groupsPuerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, and CubanAmericans have different problems in the job market. In particu-lar, Puerto Rican men and women have severe problems of jobless-ness. This is true both on the island and on the mainland.
For instance, Puerto Rican youth in 1981 had an unemploymentrate of 40.7 percent, an unemployment rate exceeded only by thatof black youth Also, while 50 percent of all women are in the workforce, only 37 percent of Puerto Rican women are either employedor looking for work. The economic difficulties of Puerto Ricanwomen are onmpounded by the fact that many are solely responsi-ble for their families. The much publicized growth in black familiesheaded by women finds its parallel in the situation of Puerto Ricanwomen Approximately 40 percent of mainland Puerto Rican fami-lies are currently headed by women, up from about 25 percent in1970.
The major problem facing Mexican Americans is low pay. I donot wish to minimize their unemployment problems currently, butrather, I wish to point out that even when times are prosperousand Mexican American unemployment is somewhat down, they arestill in low-paying jobs. Mexican American men average lowerhourly earnings than any other group of men, regardless of race or
201
198
ethnic status. While all women earn less on average than all men,Mexican American women earn less than any other group. In otherwords, they average lower hourly rates of pay than any othergroup of men or women.
By contrast, Cuban American men and women do well in thelabor market, at least compared to the other Hispanic groups. Rela-tively speaking, their rate of participation in the labor force ishigh, and their unemployment rates are low. On the other hand, asa group, their income is substantially below that of non-Hispanicwhites.
As important, published figures on Cuban Americans exclude thelarge number of recent refugees. While there are no precise figureson this group, there is evidence that a substantial number at'° stilljobless.
Some of the differences in the problems the different groups ex-perience are due to their geographic locationsthe fact that thePuerto Ricans live largely in the Northeast, and Mexican Ameri-cans and Cuban Americans in the more prosperous part of thecountry, the Sun Belt. But even so, our research indicates that themajor reason for the various groups' economic difficulties are thesame.
Those reasons are: (1) a lack of proficiency in English, (2) lowlevels of formal schooling, and (3) discrimination in the job market.In this context, lack of proficiency in English means not only a limited ability to speak and understand the language but also an infre-quent use of English.
Of these three reasons, our research indicates that a lack of pro-ficiency in English is the most important cause of their problemsbecause of the ways in which language affects Hispanics. First, alack of proficiency in English directly reduces their opportunitiesfor wellpaying jobs, second, it impedes their education, and third, itoperates as a vehicle for discrimination in the job market. Hispanicmen who do not speak well are in lower paying jobs than non-His-panic men who also do not speak well.
Training programs can help improve the position of Hispanics inthe job market. While they cannot be expected to reduce problemsassociated with discrimination or with a lack of job opportunities,they can raise Hispanics' skill levels and their proficiency in Eng-lish. The research that was undertaken by the Commission foundthat after taking into account other factors that affect the probabil-ity that an individual will participate in CETA, Hispanics were lesslikely than other groups to be in the programs. The reasons for thisrelative lack of participation are not clear. It may be due to theparticular geographic distribution of Hispanics and the way monieswere allocated. It may be due to language barriers and unfamiliarity with the programs. It could be the result of discrimination onthe part of various program operators. Or, the relative underrepre-sentation could be the result of decisions on the part of Hispanicindividuals.
We also found that Hispanics who did participate in CETA weremore likely than either whites or blacks to want and receive training, rather than public service employment. They were also morelikely than the other groups to receive classroom training ratherthan on-the-job training. There is no research that indicates that
202
199
the differences in representation of Hispanics in these programs re-flects any differential treatment against or for Hispanics whencompared to blacks and whites.
What we did find, however, is that Hispanic women, like theirwhite and black counterparts, were more likely to be trained forlow-paying jobs. I would suggest that this is particularly importantfor Mexican American women because, as I indicated earlier, theyare at the bottom of the pay scale.
Determining the reasons for these differences between men andwomen in CETA and for Hispanics' low rate of participation inCETA would be especially useful at this time. The informationwould be helpful in assuring that the Hispanic community will bebetter served under the new Job Training Partnership Act.
Awareness of the problems that Hispanics experience in the jobmarket has increased significantly over the past decade. It is en-couraging that the issues have been identified and that policy-makers have recognized their importance. Certainly, recognizingthat a problem exists is the necessary first step to finding a solu-tion.
As a next step, concerted action on several fronts will be neces-sary. First, resources must continue to be devoted :o improving thelanguage skills of both young and adult Hispanics, mainland born,island born, and immigrant. Second, a major effort to reduce theschool dropout rates of young Hispanics must be undertaken.Third, enforcement of equal opportunity laws is critical.
Finally, -,, will be important to monitor changes in the position ofHispanics over the coming years. This means improving data onPuerto Ricans on the island, on the mainland, and on their migra-tion between the two places, developing a consistent definition ofHispanics, and increasing sample sins in individual surveys so thatthe experiences of the several Hispanic groups can be better under-stood than at present. Without better information, we will notknow the extent to which Hispanics progress, or do not progress,over the coming years.
In closing, let me again thank you for inviting me to appear onbehalf of the National Commission for Employment Policy.
[The statement of Ms. Jusenius follows:]
203
200
STATEMENT SIFORE Tit
SUBCOMMITTEE CM CENSUS AND POPULATION
U.S. MOUSE OF IEPRESINTATIFES
AND TIE
CONGRESSIONAL MISPANIC CLDCUS
IT
CAROL L. JUSISIUS, PV.D
ECONOMIST
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR EMPLOYMENT POLICY
September 15, 1113
204
201
I appreciate the opportunity to be part of this panel on Hispanics and
their position in the job market. This is a critical topic, not just for
Hispanics, but for the Nation as a whole. Aa the Hispanic community continuos
to emerge as a significant part of the population, the need to improve its
economic well-being is becoming increasingly important to the entire economy.
My comments are based largely on work undertaken by the National Commis-
aion for Employment Policy (NCEP). The Commission was created by Congress
under the Comprehensive Employmemnt and Training Act of 1973 (CETA) and has
been continued under the Job Training Partnership Act. It is directed by the
law to provide information to Congress and the President on the nature of em-
ployment problems throughout the Nation, to make recommendations on dealing
effectively with the problems, and to evaluate the variety of programs and
policiea in the public and private sectors for dealing with these problems.
The Commission began a major research effort on the problems that
Hispanics experience in the job market in 1981. The project sought to (1)
identify the problems, (2) determine the reasons for the problems, and (3)
investigate the effectiveness of government programs in alleviating them. At
the outset, the Commission found that many perceptions existed about the
dimensions and causes of labor market problems among Hispanics, but there was
very little information to support these views. The first step, then, was to
undertake some new, in-depth analyses of available data. At the same time,
the U.S. Department of Labor was undertaking a major research project in this
area. The results of these two h efforts are contained in a Commission
report, Hispanics and Jobs: Barriers to Progress, issued in 1982. More re-
cently, as part of jointly funded Commission-Department of Labor project on
the problems of older Americans in the job market, there are now additional
findings on Hispanics' participation in programs funded under the
Comprehtneive Employment and Training Act.
My statement begins with a description of Hiapanics' problems in the job
market, I than present research findings on the reasons for their difficul-
ties. Because this panel is concerned with training programs, and training is
202
-2-
one wey of improving Hispanics' economic position, I also report on their
experiences under CHIA. Finally, I offer some suggestions on steps that may
be taken to assist the Hispanic population in the future.
Hispanics' Position in the Job Market
It is useful to begin a discussion of Hispanics' position in the job
market by looking at a summary index. This index identifies those persons who
are both economically disadvantaged and either unemployed, underemployed, or
in school. It is based on the criteria estebliehed by Congress for deter-
mining eligibility for the federally funded training programs under CETA
(title II-8).
Table 1 shows the proportion of different demographic groups who were
eligible for these training programs in 1980. The wide variation in these
figures is dramatic testimony to the differences among groups. At one extreme
are older white adults, about 7 percent of whom were eligible for training.
At the other extreme are black adults, about 30 percent of whom were eligible
for training. About one-quarter of the adult Hispanic population were
eligible.
Several specific measures are used to indicate the nature and severity of
the problems that groups experience in the job market.
o The labor force participation rate is the proportion of a group that is
either employed or looking for work. It indicates a group's involve-
ment in the job market; this involvement is important because most
penple's income is from employment.
o The unemployment rate is the share of the labor force that is without
work, but actively seeking it. It measures a group's difficulties
finding and keeping jobs.
o Occupations and earnings indicate the economic success of those whn are
employed.
206
203
- 3 -
Table 1
Percentage of Different Croups Eligible
for Federally Funded Training a
Race/Ethnicityand Sax
As*
Total, 14Tears 4 Older
22-44
Tears
45Tears
Race /Ethnicity
{ihite 9.6 10.6 7.4
Black 33.3 31.4 30.6
Hispanic 26.9 25.7 25.8
Other 21.0 19.5 19.5
Sex
Male 12.4 13.4 8.9
Tamale 14.1 14.8 11.6
(a) Eligibility criteria for Comprehensive Employment and Training Act titleII-3.
SOURCE: "Eligibility and Participation Rates of Older Americans inEmployment and Training Programs," prepared for NationalCommissioo for Employment Policy and the U.S. Department ofLabor, by Ealman Rupp at al, Mastat Inc., June 1983.
204
- 4 -
o Income include' earnings from jobs, unemployment compensation, other
transfer payment', interest mod dividends. It indicates group's
sc000mic well- being.
As I shall indicate, Hispanics differ substantially from blacks and whites
along all of these measures.
o The rote at which Hispanic man participate in the labor force has bean,
mod continues to be, quite high: for **ample, 85 percent of 1140 over
20 year of age were either working or looking for work in 1982. The
figure for white MO in this age group was 80 percent and for black
man, 75 percent.
o lho rate at which Hispanic women participate in the job market has been
rising rapidly; by 1982, 50 percent of Hispanic woman 20 years of age
or older were in the work force, compared to 52 percent among white
women in this age group.
o Tho unemployment rat. of Hispanics has consistently been between that
of whites and blacks -- in good sod bad economic times. Again looking
at 1982, 14 percent of the Hispanics 16 years of age or older who were
in the work force were looking for job, compared to 9 percent of
whites and 19 percent of blacks.
o Hispanic men are sore likely than than black or whit. men to have
blue-collar jobs. Within this broad occupational category, Hispanic
men are likely to be either craft workers or machine operators. While
Hispanic men are also sore likely than whites or blacks to be in farm
work, relatively few are in such jobs -- close to 5 percent of the
employed Hispanic men, compared to about 4 percent of whit. employed
men. Within the occupation' classified as farm work, Hispanics are
laboror or supervisors while whit. sea are !armors and farm manager.
o Hispanic women are also sore likely to be in blue-collar jobs than
either white or black women. Close to 30 percent hold such positions
compared to less than 20 percent of black wows And less than 15 per-
cent of white women. Within the category of blue-collar jobs, most
Hispanic woman are machine operators.
zos
205
- 5 -
o Hispanics are better off than blacks in terms of yearly income, but
worse off than whites. However, in terms of hourly wages, both His-
panic and bla.:k son average almost 80 percent of that which white men
earn. While all groups of women average less per hour than all groups
of men, Hispanic women are at the butt= of the pay scale. They aver-
age close to 80 percent of that of white women, lower than that of
black women, who average about 90 percent of white women's hourly pay.
While this kind of information on the Hispanic population provides
useful overview, the statistics largely reflect the experiences of Mexican-
Americans, who comprise 60 percent c the Hispanic mainland population.
Differentiating among the Hispanic groups -- Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans,
and Cuban-Americans reveala that these different groups have different
problems in the job sarkat. Unfortunately, data on Centralffouth Americans
are too limited to permit accurate generalisations. *tong the groups for
which data are sufficient, we found that:
o Puerto Rican men and women have a aevere problem of joblessness -- as
indicated by their low rates of participation in the labor force and
high rates of unemployment. this problem of jobl exists both on
the island and on the sainland. For instance, Puerto Rican youth (age
16-19) on the sainland had an unemployment rate of 40.7 percent i'n
1982; black youth were the only group with higher unemployment rate,
48 percent. Also, while over 30 percent of all adult women (20 years
or older) were in the work force in 1982, only 37 percent of adult
Puerto Rican women were either employed or looking for work. The
economic difficulties faced by Puerto Rican women are compounded by the
fact that many are solely responsible for the economic well-being of
their families. The much publicised growth in black families headed by
women is paralleled by Puerto Rican families. Approximately 40 percent
of mainland Puerto Rican households were headed by women in 1979 -- up
from about 25 percent in 1970.
20J26-464 0-83---14
206
- 6 -
o Mexican-American men average lover hourly earnings than any other group
of men and they are more likely to be in blue-collar jobs and in farm
work. Mexican-American women average lower earnings per hour than
whites, blacks and the other groups of Hispanic and non-Hispanic men
and women.
o Cuban-American men and women do well in the labor market, compared to
the other Hispanic group,: their rate of participation in the labor
force is high, unemployment is low and their median personal income is
also high. Oa the other hand, their income is substantially below that
of non-Hispanic whites. Also, published figures on Cuban-Americans ex-
clude the large number of recent Martel refugees. While there are no
precise figures on this group, there is evidence that a substantial
number are jobless.
Reasons for Hispanics' Problems in the Job Market
Determining the reasons for Hispanics' difficulties in the job market is
an empirical problem. The goal is to disentangle the effects that various
characteristic. (such as location, education, immigrant status, age, experi-
ence and proficiency in English) have on, for example, their earnings or
occupational position.
One important theme in the re h on Hispanics is that the several
groups art rewarded differently in the job market for such factors as educa-
tion and experience. The reasons for this finding are not fully understood.
While the different groups actually may be treated differently, they also live
in different parts of the country. Because State. acid localities vary in
their growth rates and occupation/industry structures, the different treatment
of the several Hispanic groups may reflect more their location in particular
parts of the country than their ethnic status.
Some of the difference. in the experience. of the several Hispanic groups
are undoubtedly due to their patterns of geographic concentration. Hot only
is the Hispanic population more geographically concentrated than the U.S.
population as a whole, but there is further regional concentration within
0
207
- 7 -
the Hispanic population. Ninety percent of all Mexican-Americans live in the
southwest: Southern California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado; over
70 percent of the Puerto Ricans on the mainland are in New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania; and 60 percent of Cuban-Americans are concentrated in Florida
and 25 percent in New York and New Jersey.
Puerto Ricans have difficulties finding work in part because job growth in
the Middle Atlantic States has been quite slow in recant years. For example,
between the two peak years of 1973 and 1979, when the number of jobs grew by
almost 15 percent nationally, the number of jobs declined by 0.3 percent in
New York State. By contrast, because Mexican - Americans and Cuban-Americans
live in the Sunbelt, relatively prosperous part of the Nation, they find
work more easily. The problem for them, especially for Mexican-Americans, is
the low-paying nature of their jobs.
While geographic location plays role in explaining the problems of the
different Hispanic groups, our research finds that the major reasons for their
problems are (1) lack of proficiency in English, (2) low levels of formal
schooling, and (3) discrimination in the labor market. In this context, "lack
of proficiency in English" means not only a limited ability to speak and
understand the language, but also an infrequent use of English.
Of these three reasons, lack of proficiency in English is the most
important because of the several ways it affects Hispanics.
o Hispanic can who have problems with English earn less than those who
are proficient in the language, after taking into account other
factors that also affect earnings, such as year. of schooling and
work experience.
o Language difficulties operate as vehicle for discrimination in the
job market. After taking into account other factor., Hispanic men
who lack proficiency in English are in lower-paying occupations than
non-Hispanics with the same degree of language difficulties, such as
French-, Korean-, or Cerman-speaking workers.
208
- 8 -
o Hispanic women's language difficulties are generally associated with
reduced participation in the labor force. Those women with 12 or
more years of schooling who are not proficient in English earn less
than those who are.
o Language difficulties impede Hispanics' educational attainment. The
problem is most acute for Puerto Rican youth. Their movement between
the island and the mainland requires them to know both English and
Spanish; yet this some movement -- sometimes within a school year
can seriously impede their progress in learning to speak and read
either language well.
Hispanics' low levels of education are another important reason for their
low wages and poor occupational position. In 1978 the school dropout rate of
Hispanics between the ages of 20 and 24 was almost 3 times that of whites and
1-1/2 times that of blacks. Half of the Hispanic population 25 years or older
(when most people have completed their schooling) have completed fewer than 11
years of schooling, about 2 years less than whites and 1-1/2 years less than
blacks. This education problem is not restricted to Hispanic immigrants.
Native-born Mexican- Americans and mainland-born Puerto Ricans average 1 year
leas schooling than non - Hispanic whites.
Discrimination in the job market appears to operate in two ways against
Hispanics. The first way is through language, as I already indicated; the
second way is more direct. Our research found that, even if Hispanic men do
not have difficulties with English, they are in lower paying occupations than
non-Hispanic men. The magnitude of this difference in occupational standing
varies across States. In other words, discrimination against Hispanics
appears to be less in some States than in others. Discrimination against
Hispanic women does not appear to be a major reason for their low earnings.
To the extent that they experience discrimination, it seems to be associated
more with the fact that they are woman than that they are Hispanic.
(212;
209
- 9 -
taployment and Training Programs
Training programs can help improve the position of Hispanics in the job
market. While they cannot be expected to reduce problems associated with
discrimination or with a lack of job opportunities, they can raise Hispanics'
skill levels and their proficiency in English.
A detailed investigation of participation in CETA reveals that after
taking into account other factors that affect the probability that an
individual will participate, Hispanics were less likely to be in the programs.
The reasons for this finding are not clear. It say be due to the geographic
distribution of Hispanics; it may be due to language barriers; it could be a
result of discrimination on the part of programs operators; or it could be a
result of decisions on the part of Hispanic individuals.
Hispanics who did participate in CETA programs were more likely than
either whites or blacks to want and receive training, rather than public
service employment. Hispanics were also more likely than the other two groups
to be in classroom rather than on-the-job training. There is no evidence that
these differences among groups reflect any differential treatment of Hispanics
when compared to whites or blacks. Hispanic women, like their white and black
counterparts, were more likely to be trained for low-paying jobs than men
were.
Determining the reasons for these differences between men and women, and
for the low rate of particiation in CETA, would be especially useful at this
time. The information would be helpful in assuring that Hispanics will be
better served under the new Job Training Partnership Act.
Concluding Remarks
Awareness of the problems that Hispanics experience in the job market has
increased significantly over the past decade. It is encouraging that the
issues have been identified and that policymakers have recognised their impor-
tance. Certainly, recognizing that problem exists is the first step in
finding solutions.
213
210
- 10 -
As a next step, concerted action on several fronts will be necessary.
First, resources must Continue to be devoted to improving the language skills
of both young and adult Hispanic., mainland -born and immigrant. It must be
remembered, too, that as long as there are immigrants -- from all Parts of the
world -- there will be a continuing need for language training. Second, a
major effort to reduce the school dropout rates of young Hispanics must be
undertaken; without it, the Hispanic dropouts of the 1980' are likely to be
disadvantaged adults in the 1990's. Once in school, Hispanic youth, like all
youth, need to acquire the basic skills necessary to compete successfully in
the job market. Third, enforcement of equal opportunity laws is critical.
Finally, it will be important to monitor changes in the position of
Hispanics over the coming years. This means improving the data on Puerto
Ricans on the island, on the mainland and on their migration between the two
places; developing a consistent definition of Hispanics across data bases and
within the same data bass, over time; and increasing sample sixes in individ-
ual surveys so that the experiences of the several Hispanic groups can be
understood with greater precision than at present. Without better informa-
tion, we will not know the full extent of Hispanics' progress over the coming
years.
In closing, let me again thank you for inviting me to appear on behalf of
the National Commission for Employment Policy.
"Pl 41
211
Mrs. HALL. Thank you very much. We certainly do appreciateyour testimony.
The subcommittee would like to announce at this time that theHouse of Representatives is in session today. There is a possibilitythat votes will come to the floor and that Members will have toleave to vote. I would like to inform all of our witnesses of that Weare hoping that we will not have to leave too often, but when theHouse is in session there is always a possibility of a vote. In casethere is a vote, we will be notified, and we will have to recess fre-quently so that members will be given time to go and vote andreturn.
With that consideration, the Chair wishes to ask each witness totestify and then give members of the subcommittee the opportunityto ask questions. We did make an exception for Governor Anayadue to his schedule, and I hope that is satisfactory to each of you.
At this time, the Chair would like to introduce Dr. Fred Romeroof the U.S. Department of Labor.
STATEMENT OF FRED ROMERO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mr. ROMERO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportuni-ty to participate in these hearings. I do work for the Department ofLabor. However, I do not necessarily represent the official views ofthe Department here, and I feel that you should know that.
Second, I have a prepared text, that I will summarize to try toavoid citing statistics mentioned already to conserve time. Howev-er, I would like my text to be included in the record, if at all possi-ble.
Mrs. HALL. Without objection, so ordered.Mr. ROMERO. This is a timely concern for these hearings, not
only because Hispanics bear a disproportionate share of the unem-ployment and underemployment in this country but because likelydevelopments in the coming years threaten to drive down even fur-ther their low relative standing on the American economic ladder.
My major point today is that unless a number of changes are ac-complished, Hispanics will continue to encounter disproportionate-ly serious economic difficulties in the next decade and face erosionof some of the gains of the past decade.
In brief, the major threatening trends underlying this concernabout employment of the Hispanic subpopulation are these:
One. Changes occurring in the composition of employment willincreasingly require an educated work force for the higher paidemployment opportunities, and Hispanic youth and adults do notappear to be keeping up with these educational demands.
Second. Technological changes are reshaping the nature of skillrequirements, and although much of the projected employmentgrowth will be in relatively low-level service and processing activi-ties, the more attractive jobs will require higher level skills, neces-sitating substantial training or retraining. Unless the required skilldevelopment is actively promoted in the Hispanic community, thegap between its skills and the higher level job opportunities will befurther widened.
Third. Demographic trends are working against improving thejob-market position of the Hispanic work population. Youth and
212
immigrants, each of which have specially troublesome employmentdifficulties, are increasing more rapidly in the Hispanic populationthan among the general population. Hispanic women who are en-tering the work force about as rapidly as women generally faceproblems beyond those being encountered by women entrants ingeneral.
My remarks will concentrate on the demographic and socialtrends which, I believe, will have serious employment implicationsfor Hispanics in the next 10 years. The four trends which I wouldlike to discuss with this committee are, one, the aging of the gener-al population; two. the labor market problems of youth; three, theincreasing number of women entering the labor force, and four, thepresence of an increasing number of undocumented workers in thiscountry.
With regard to the aging of the population, we know that theaverage age of the population and work force will be increasing atleast until the end of this century. The age of entry into the labormarket has been going up, while the age of retirement has trendeddownward. Hispanics, along with other U.S. population groups, areliving longer, their age of entry into employment and matrimonyhas also gone up, and their age of retirement has remained abovethat of the general population. However, while the labor force ingeneral is characterized by an aging population, the Hispanic popu-lation is not. Fifty percent are under 24 years of age, and almostone-third are under age 13.
Hispanics share the general concerns about older Americans, butthe special situation of Hispanics requires continuing attention aswell to the particular problems of youth. My concern is that aspolicy attention becomes directed toward the problems of an agingpopulation. we do not neglect the needs of the more youthful His-panic population.
Another aspect of the changing age distribution of the laborforce is that equal employment will take on new meaning as peoplein their thirties and forties find their upward mobility blocked byan increased proportion of the population in their fifties and six-ties. The problem of discrimination against Hispanics may well beexacerbated.
The second trend with serious employment implications for His-panics is the number of Hispanic youth. Because Hispanic birthrates are higher than the birth rates of the general population,Hispanic youth continue to grow in numbers and as a percent of allHispanics at a time when the youth population or youth proportionof the general population is declining. The Hispanic youth unem-ployment rate was :30 percent in 1982, and the numbers have beenincreasing.
Part of the Hispanic difficulty is rooted in nationwide economicconditions, and part of the difficulty is an inability to compete forthe limited job opportunities available. A sizable proportion of His-panic youth have language and school dropout problems so severeas to effectively confine them to a life of poverty and despair.Young Hispanics also face and will continue to face difficult compe-tition for part-time and entry-level jobs. As new labor force en-trants seeking entry-level jobs, adult women are often in directcompetition with teen workers. Without a substantial increase in
213
job opportunities, any increase in adult women labor force entrantscould effectively cancel any improvements for teenagers that mightresult from an ease in the overall teenage population.
In addition, Hispanic youth will be competing with those dis-placed workers who lack transferable skills. Further, Hispanicyouth will also likely be in competition with older workers whocontinue to seek jobs because of economic necessity and other con-siderations, Finally, Hispanic youth will be competing with undocu-mented workers, a subject that you will consider this afternoon.
With regard to women, (as you know and as has been cited byCarol Jusenius and others,) since World War II an ever-increasingproportion of women has been entering the work force, a trendthat is expected to continue into the 1990s. The phenomenon is due,in part, to population growth and in part to the rising rate of par-ticipation. Hispanic women, especially those of Mexican ancestry,have been part of this general trend.
While Hispanic women's interest in work outside the home is onthe increase, their unemployment rate remains terribly high andtheir pay generally low. Their labor market problems are due pri-marily to the lack of education.
With regard to undocumented workers, another major socialtrend that will have implications for Hispanics in the future, theirpresence in the labor market poses problems not only for Americanworkers but for themselves as well. Undocumented workers havebeen identified as an emerging underclass, subject to violations oftheir civil rights, vulnerable to exploitation, living in a shadowy ex-istence in this country. The illegal status, per se, of undocumentedworkers is a greater contributing factor to their problems thantheir numbers or their characteristics. And their presence doescause economic damage to American workers.
What steps do I think are necessary to improve the social well-being of Hispanics? The steps necessary to improve Hispanics' eco-nomic status involve the individual Hispanic, Hispanic organiza-tions, and the broader institutions of society that provide generaleducation and job skills.
Individually, Hispanics must stay in school or seek training op-portunities to acquire the requisite skills for an increasingly com-petitive job market. Collectively, Hispanics must dedicate their ef-forts to obtain open and effective education and training systems.For example, the new Job Training and Partnership Act [JTPA]presents many useful opportunities for Hispanics.
Since training programs are one way to improve the position ofHispanics in the job market, it is imperative that Hispanics moni-tor the implementation of JTPA to insure an equitable representa-tion of Hispanics in this program. A recent study, the study thatCarol Jusenius cited, shows that Hispanics seemed to have beenunderrepresented nationwide in CETA, the program to be replacedby the Job Training Partnership Act on October 1, 1983. My ownobservations corrborate the findings in the study. Although thefindings require additional analysis to pinpoint the causes, it seemsreasonable to assume the following: Hispanics can be expected toapply for training programs only if they perceive that the benefitsof program participation will exceed the opportunity cost of partici-
217
214
pation It is my observation that, in general, Hispanics' porceptionof training programs is that the benefits do not match their needs.
Potential benefits depend on the match between the skill needsof the individual and the specific traning programs offered. His-panics who participated in CETA were more likely than eitherWhites or Blacks to want training, as has been cited, rather thanpublic service employment. Also, they were more likely than theother two groups to be in classroom rather than on-the-job train-ing. In other words, Hispanics more than others in CETA preferredand took basic skills training. This indicates that Hispanics areaware of their need to improve reading and math skills and lan-guage proficiency. At the same time, training in these areas wasnot offered in adequate amounts. Further, without these basicskills, Hispanics do not expect to benefit from training programsoriented toward high-skilled occupations, and they did not expectto benefit over the long run from much of the short-term trainingbeing offered for low and semiskilled occupations.
In general, the range of prograrl offerings in CETA was not con-sistent with Hispanic needs. The absence of English language train-ing and basic skills training within CETA in sufficient amountswas a deterrent to program participation by Hispanics. There isevidence that nationwide, training program operators treated ourparticipants in a similar fashion. Cost measures used for bettingperformance standards, specifically the cost-per-entered-employ-ment measure, had the effect of making program operators selec-tive in the range and type of training provided. The absence ofEnglish language training sufficient to meet the special needs ofHispanics, for example, could very well be the result of attempts tokeep program costs down. There is no doubt in my mind that Eng-lish language training, when coupled with other basic and techni-cal training Hispanics may require, is costly.
Some of the factors that I think may help explain some Hispanicunderrepresentation in CETA include family size, education, andgeographic location. With regard to family size, on an average, His-panic families are larger than the general population. Studies indi-cate that the larger the family size, the lower the likelihood of par-ticipation in training. Second, likelihood of participation in train-ing programs is lower among people with fewer years of education.The low schooling levels of Hispanics, in conjunction with theirlanguage difficulties, could be expected to affect participation be-cause Hispanics would be less likely to know of the availability oftraining and/or less likely to perceive sufficiently large enoughpayoff to compensate for forego e earnings. Third, Hisapnic com-munities are generally some distance away from training facilities.In the early days of CETA, transportation allowances were readilyavailable to Hispanics living in barrios some distance away fromCETA services. Gradually this support was withdrawn as pressuremounted to keep program costs down.
To many Hispanics, the benefits offered by past training pro-grams were not worth the investment of time and the expenses In-v& ;ed. Under JTPA, with its exclusive focus on training and withthe involvement of the business sector, there are new opportunitiesto provide needed service to Hispanics. Taking advantage of theseopportunities means learning from the past and making full use of
216
215
the flexibility that JTPA allows to tailor programs to the specificneeds of Hispanics.
I want to thank you for inviting me, and that concludes my re-marks.
[The statement of Mr. Romero follows:1
TESTIMONY OF FRED E. ROMERO, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF STRATEGICPLANNING AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportu-nity to be part of this panel on employment in the Hispanic Community. The viewsexpressed here today are mine and do not reflect the official views of the Depart-ment of Labor.
This is a timely concern, not only because Hispanics bear a disproportionate shareof the unemployment and underemployment in this country, but because likely de-velopments in the coming years threaten to drive down even further their low rela-tive standing on the American economic ladder. My major point today is that unlessa number of changes are accomplished, Hispanics will continue to encounter dispro-portionately serious economic difficulites in the next decade and face erosion ofsome gains or the past decade.
In brief, the major threatening trends underlying this concern about employmentof the Hispanic subpopulation are these:
Changes occurring in the composition cf employment will increasingly require aneducation workforce for the higher-paid employment opportunitiesand Hispanicyouth and adults do not appear to be keeping up with these educational demands.
The internationalization of the economy, technolgical advances, and other shiftsare reshaping the nature of skill requirements. Although much of the projected em-ployment growth will be in relatively low-level service and processing activities, themore attractive jobs will require higher-level skills necessitating substantial train-ing or retraining. Unless the required skill development is actively promoted in theHispanic community, the gap between its skills and the higher-level job opportuni-ties will be further widened.
Demographic trends are working against improving the job market position of theHispanic work population. Youth and immigrantseach of which have speciallytroublesome employment difficultiesare increasing more rapidly in the Hispanicpupulation than among the general population. Hispanic women who are enteringthe work force, about as rapidly as women generally, face problems beyond thosebeing encountered by women entrants in general.
MAJOR DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL CHANGES
My remarks today will concentrate on the demographic and social trends which, Ibelieve will have serious employment implications for Hispanics in the next tenyears.
Four major trends affecting Hispanics and employment over the next decades are:(a) the aging of the general population; (b) the labor market problems of youth; (c)the increasing number of women entering the labor force; and (d) the presence of anincreasing number of undocumented workers in this country.
Aging population.We know that the average age of the population and workforce will be increasing, at least until the end of this century. The birthrate of thegeneral population has been decreasing, longevity has been increasing. The age ofentry into the labor market (and into matrimony) has been going with the numberof years of work in the period between.
Hispanics, along with other U.S. population groups, are living longer, their age ofentry into employment and matrimony has also gone up, and their age of retire-ment has remained above that of the general population.
However, while the labor force in general is characterized by an aging population,the Hispanic population is not- 50 percent are under 24 years of age and almost one-third are under age 15.
Hispanics share the general concerns about older Americans: health, retirementincome, age discrimination in employment, difficulties finding work, and other prob-lems. But the special situation of Hispanics requires continuing attention as well tothe particular problems of youth. My concern is that as policy attention becomesdirected toward the problems of an aging population, we do not neglect the needs ofthe more youthful Hispanic population.
Another aspect of the changing age distribution of the labor force is that, as thepost-war baby boom generation ages and moves into the prime years of worklife, it
21i
216
will encounter unprecedented competition for positions and promotion across thefull spectrum of the economy, whether conditions be recessionary or prosperiousEqual employment will take on new meanings as people in their :30's and 40's findtheir upward mobility blocked by increased proportions of the population in their50's and 60's The problems of discrimination against Hispanics may well be exacer-
bated.Young workets.It is projected that in 1993 there will be 31/2 million fewer white
men between the ages of 16 and 24 than in 1982, a drop from over IS million to II 4million. At the same time, two million fewer will he in the labor market, a dropfrom over II million to about 9 million In 1982, young white men accounted for10.3 percent of the total labor force. By 1995, the percent will decline to 7 3.
Because Hispanic birthrates are higher than birthrates of the general population.Hispanic youth continue to grow in numbers and as a percent of all Hispanics at atime when the youth proportion of the general population is declining By 1990, it isanticipated that over 10 percent of all 15 to 19-year-olds in the United States willbe Hispanic, compared to less than 8 percent in 1980.
There are approximately 2 million Hispanic youth aged 16 to 19, a large propor-tion of whom face ser: -is employment problems The Hispanic youth unemploy-ment rate was 30 percent in 1982 compared to 23 percent for the total youth popula-tion of the same age group. Hispanic youth labor force participation was 45 per-centthe lowest since 1977, compared to 54 percent for all youth.
Part of Hispanics' difficulty is rooted in nationwide economic conditions. but partof the difficulty is the inability to compete for the limited job opportunities available.Seeable proportions of Hispanic youth have language and school drop-out problemsso severe as to effectively consign them to a life of proverty and despair. Thirty-eight percent of Hispanic 18 to 19 diplomas, compared to 13 percent for total Ameri-can youth of the same age The situation is not likely to improve rapidly Hispanicstudents in every region of the country are more likely to be held back in schoolthan white students.
Reading performance between 1971 and 1975, as measured by achievement tests,decreased for Hispanic students ages 13 to 17, while it increased for white and hlackstudents. Math scores for Hispanic 17 year olds were 18 percentage points belowthose for white students during the same period,
Young Hispanic also faceand will continue to facedifficult competition forpart-time and entry-level jobs:
About half of all women over age 16 are working or seeking work By 1990, thisproportion will have risen to three quarters. If the percentage of working womenwent up to 63 percent, It would bring an extra 6 million women into the labor forceAs new labor force entrants seeking entry-level jobs, adult women are often indirect competition with teen workers Without a substantial increase in job opportu-nities any increase in adult women labor force entrants could effectively cancel anyimprovements for teenagers that might result from an ease in the overall teenagepopulation.
In addition, Hispanic youth wili be competing with those displaced workers wholack transferable skills and are forced by economic necessity to accept any workthey can get.
Hispanic youth will also likely be in competition with older workers who continueto seek jobs because of economic necessity, changes in the social security system,and the passage of new age discrimination laws.
Finally, Hispanic youth will he competing with undocumented workers, a group
discussed later.Wornen.Since World War H an ever increasing proportion of women have been
entering the workforce--a trend that is expected to continue Into the 1990's. Thisphenomenon is due in part to population growth and in part to the rising rate ofparticipation. Hispanic women, especially those of Mexican ancestry, have been partof this general trend. For example. in 1977, 47 percent of white women 20 years orolder and 47 percent of Mexican-American women were in the labor force; by 1982,52 percent of adult white women and 51 percent adult Mexican-American womenwere either working or looking for work. Further, we can expect this trend amongHispanic women to continue. Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey'syouth cohort iyoung people ages 16 to 21 in 1979) indicates that young Hispanicwomen. like non-Hispanic white women, are aware that work outside the house willbe an important part of their adult lives. When asked "What would you like to bedoing at age 35", two-thirds of both groups indicated a preference for paid employ-
ment.While Hispanic women's interest in work outside the home is on the increase,
their unemployment rate remains high and their pay generally lowon average
t220
217
they earn less per hour and year than any other group of men or women and theysuffer from serious problems of career mobility. Obtaining a more positive future forHispanic females will remain a challenge for the next decades.
The labor market problems of Hispanic women are due to lack of education (aswell as discrimination). Although most minority groups have reduced school non-at-tendance rates since 1970, in 1976 Mexican-American females 15 to 17 were stillmore than twice as likely as white males to be out of school. Indeed. Hispanic fe-males suffer the worst non-attendance rates of any Hispanic sub-group. Attaining acollege education is still far beyond the reach of almost all Hispanics, particularlyHispanic women. In 1976 the college completion rate of Puerto Rican females wasonly 12 percent of the rate of white males.
UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS
Although reliable estimates are hard to come by, it is evident the impact of un-documented workers in the labor market is being felt by Hispanics and other groupsacross the United States. Their presence in the labor market poses problems notonly for American workers but for themselves as well.
Undocumented workers have been identified as an emerging underclass, subjectto violations of their civil rights, vulnerable to exploitation, living a shadowy exist-ence in this country. The illegal status, per se, of undocumented workers is a great-er contributing factor to their problems than are their numbers or their characteris-tics. It is because of their illegal status that:
They are exploited by some employers who do not pay them either the minimumwage or overtime, or do not follow the required work standards. A Mexican govern-ment study indicated that over three-fifths of apprehended illegal aliens interviewedby Mexican officials reported they were not paid regularly and/or were owed wages(due them).
They are excluded from some social support programs, employment and trainingprograms, Unemployment Insurance, and food stamps.
In many cases, they do not seek needed medicial and other services, or reportcrimes committed against them.
They are abused by landlords and others who can threaten exposure.They do not make use of laws applicable to them, such as social security.The presence of undocumented aliens causes economic damage to American work-
ers.Since the principal labor market impact of illegal aliens is in low wage, low status
jobs, the undocumented workers compete directly with America's poor, including ofcourse its Hispanic citizens and legal residents.
Illegal aliens compete very successfully: They are often willing to work longerhours, at lower wages, without complaining. This creates unfair competition forAmerican workers, who may find themselves displaced from their jobs.
The presence of large numbers of illegal alien workers reduces pressures towardupgrading labor standards. Because employers who seek out such workers tend tofind an ample supply, they are little concerned about quality of work life, and oftencan avoid dealing with unions.
In some cases, labor standards are undercut. In areas where illegal aliens congre-gate, employers may use their presence to lower wages offered to all individualsseeking the same kinds of work. The wages paid to illegal alien workers become ineffect the prevailing wage Surely this has happened in seasonal agricultural work,in garment factories, in domestic household employment and in other service jobs.
TOWARD IMPROVEMENT
The steps necessary to improve Hispanics' economic status involve the individualHispanic, Hispanic organizations and the broader institutions of society that providegeneral education and job skills.
Individually Hispanics must stay in school or seek training opportunities to ac-quire the requisite skills for an increasingly competitive job market. Collectively,Hispanics must dedicate their efforts to obtain open and effective education andtraining systems. For example, the new Job Training and Partnership Act (JTPA)presents many useful opportunities for Hispanics. Hispanic organizations need toget involved and work as partners to insure that unemployed unskilled Hispanicsaccess this Federally-supported training system and to assure the adequacy and rel-evancy of the training provided.
Since training programs are one way to improve the position of Hispanics in thejob market, it is imperative that Hispanicsmonitor the implementation of JTPA toensure an equitable representation of Hispanics in this program. A recent study
22i.
218
sponsored jointly by the Department of Labor and the National Commission for Em-ployment Policy INCEPT of the CRI'A program, now being replaced by JTPA, showsthat after taking into account other factors likely to be associated with participationin CETA, Hispanics seem to have been underrepresented nationwide.
My own observations corroborate those found in the study Although the findingsrequire additional analysis to pinpoint the causes, it seems reasonable to state thefollowing. IA) Hispanics can be expected to apply for training programs only if theyperceive that the benefits of program participation will exceed the opportunity costsof participation. It is my observation that, in general, Hispanics' perceptions oftraining programs is that the benefits do not match their needs.
Potential benefits depend on the match between the skill needs of the individualand the specific training programs offered Hispanics who participated in CETAwere more likely than either whites or blacks to want training, rather than publicservice employment Also, they were more likely than the other two groups to be inclassroom rather than on-the-job-training In other words, Hispanics, more thanothers, in CETA preferred and took basic skills training. This indicates that His-panics are aware of their need to improve reading and math skills and languageproficiency. At the same time, training in these areas was not offered in adequateamounts under CETA. Further, without these basic skills, Hispanics did not expectto benefit from training programs oriented toward high-skilled occupations; andthey did not expect to benefit over the long run from much of the short-term train-ing being offered for low and semi-skilled occupations.
In general, the range of program offerings in CETA was not consistent with His-panic needs. The absence of English language training and basic skills training withCETA in sufficient amounts was a deterrent to program participation by Hispanics
There is evidence that nation-wide training program operators treated all partici-pants in a similar fashion. Cost measures used for setting performance standardsunder CETA, specifically the "cost per entered employment" measure, had theeffect of making program operators selective in the range and type of training pro-vided. The absence of English language training sufficient to meet the special needsof Hispanics for example, could very well be the result of attempts to keep programcosts down. There is no doubt that English language training when coupled withother basic and technical training Hispanics may require, is costly IBI Cultural andHispanic-specific demographic factors have been cited by program operators as thereason for their inability to attract or serve Hispanics We know that CETA partici-pation among eligibles is far from random There is a relationship between demo-graphic variables and program participation and this relationship in many in-stances applies across ethnic and racial groups For example, the DOL-NCEP studyfound that older persons are less likely to participate, males participate more thanfemales, and single and widowed persons are more likely to participate than mar-ried persons
Some of the factors that I think may help explain Hispanic underrepresentationin training programs are. family size, education and geographic location First, onaverage, Hispanic families are larger than the general population Studies indicatethat the larger the family size. the lower the likihood of participation in trainingSecond, likelihood of participation in training programs is lower among people withlevier years of education The low schooling level of Hispanics in conjuction withlanguage difficulties) could be expected to affect participation because Hispanicswould be less likely to know of the availability of training and/or less likely to per-ceive a sufficiently large payoff to compensate for foregone earnings
Third. Hispanic communities are generally some distance away from the trainingfacilities. In the early days of CETA, transportation allowances were readily availa-ble to Hispanics living it barrios some distance away from CETA services Gradual-ly this support was withdrawn as pressures mounted to keep program costs down
To many Hispanics, al. benefits offered by past training programs were not worththe investment of time and the expenses involved Under JTPA, with its exclusivefocus on training and with the involvement of the business sector, there are newopportunities to provide needed service to Hispanics Taking advantage of these op-portunites means learning from the pastand making full use of the flexibility thatJTPA allows to tailor programs to the needs of the persons JTPA was designed toserve.
Mr. TORRES. Thank you, Dr. Romero. Representative Hall had tostep away momentarily, so I have assumed the Chair on her behalf,and we thank you for your testimony.
222
219
The panelists have agreed in a procedure of testimony herewhereby we will try to accommodate their schedules. We will hearnext from Mr. Michael Borrero, executive director of the NationalPuerto Rican Forum. Mr. Borrero, please proceed with your testi-mony, sir.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BORRERO, PRESIDENT, NATIONALPUERTO RICAN FORUM, INC.
Mr. BORRERO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Chairman, honored member of the Subcommittee on Census
and Population and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, my nameis Michael Borrero and I am president of the National PuertoRican Forum.
The National Puerto Rican Forum is the Nation's oldest andlargest Puerto Rican community-based organization. Since 1957 ourmission has been the improvement of the socioeconomic conditionof Puerto Ricans, Hispanics, and other disadvantaged groups in themainland United States. With headquarters in New York City, wemaintain offices in five Eastern States and Washington, D.C.
My comments today reflect not only my experience as a commu-nity leader and chief executive officer of the forum, but also that ofan educator and researcher in the field of public policy, employ-ment, and training, given that prior to coming to the NationalPuerto Rican Forum, I was a professor at the University of Con-necticut and director of the Center for Human Resources Planning.
Any honest analysis of employment or unemployment must in-corporate the stubborn dilemma our economy and policymakersface in dealing with this issue of employment and unemployment.Since the 1950's, we have become painfully aware of the relation-ship between employment and inflation. It seems that our economyis unable to sustain high levels of employment without experienc-ing high levels of inflation. This every President, from Eisenhowerto our current President, has accepted and realized. Most recently,President Reagan has said that "reducing unemployment withoutreigniting the fires of inflation is the most significant domesticchallenge we face."
The consequence of such a dilemma is that by keeping inflationdown, a significant number of Americans must be unemployed. Thenumber of unemployed keeps growing, year after year, usually ab-sorbing the most vulnerable, the least skilled, educated, and experi-enced. Hispanics are a prime example and target of this event.
The official rate of unemployment among Hispanics was alreadycovered. For Puerto Ricans, the most disadvantaged of all Hispanicgroups, the figure is close to 17 percent, but we all know that therates are much higher. In a recent national study I conducted, therate of unemployment for Puerto Ricans reached well over 20 per-cent. Moreover, 24 percent of all Hispanics have income below thepoverty line, and the poverty rate for families headed by Hispanicwomen is currently 53 percent. The tepid recovery now underwaypromises little help for Hispanics, who traditionally have been em-ployed in light manufacturing, companies which increasingly areleaving the United States to take advantage of cheaper foreignlabor.
223
220
The cornerstone of the administration's policy for the disadvan-taged is the Job Training Partnership Act. While I commend theinitiative to involve the private sector in the design and implemen-tation of manpower training, I have reservations about the impactof this legislation on the Hispanic community. I have no doubt thatsome Hispanics will be served by JTPA, but it will be those mostfluent in English, those most educated, indeed, those most job-ready, who will benefit from this legislation. In effect, JTPA repre-sents the last rung on a prevocational ladder leading to a good job,but many Hispanics will be left, grasping for the intermediaterungs that have been eliminated as a result of this legislation andother Federal cuts.
Because JTPA money, are alloated to the States, there is adanger that funding will be diverted away from urban areas, whereHispanics are concentrated, to suburban and rural areas withgreater clout in the State legislatures. And, the legislation givesthe States the discretionary power to allocate funds to State-sup-ported community colleges over community-based organizations,which have been the traditional providers of job training in theHispanic community.
Community-based organizations [CBO'sI must remain vital par-ticipants in the employment and training delivery system. Theirvalue lies in their knowledge of the populations they serve. Theyare capable of recruiting and screening Hispanics not reached bypublic agencies because of the linguistic and cultural barriers expe-rienced by many members of the Hispanic community. But since1981, CBO'sthose that have survivedhave seen their fundingslashed by as much as 60 percent. Right now, the Forum has beennotified that its career service and job placement program, whichhas from the beginning in 1978 exceeded its goal in job placementand at a very low cost per placement, will be terminated at the endof this month. This means that approximately 1,650 Hispanics willnot be placed in jobs by the Forum or any other Hispanic organiza-tion next year. When you are Hispanic with limited resources, thiscould be the difference between welfare and self-sufficiency.
The 13-percent limitation on administrative costs stipulated byJTPA represents an extreme hardship to CBO's, especially sincethe portion allocated to them will be 7 to 8 percent, in most cases.It is clear to all involved in administrating these programs that itis virtually impossible for CBO's or municipalities for that matterto operate these programs with these resources. Obviously, thequality of services will deteriorate.
Let me give you an example of what New York City is currentlyfacing. Over the last few years, New York City's Department ofEmployment and Training has lost 80 percent of its employmentand training programs. The impact of these cuts has meant that 80percent fewer people are being served. More specifically, in termsof job placement, in 1981 New York City placed 30,000 people injobs. As a result of the cuts only approximately 20,000 people wereplaced in 1983.
JTPA allows the States great discretion in setting performancestandards. This, however, creates disincentives for training individ-uals who require remedial or educational preparation in additionto skills training. In its report, "Hispanics and Jobs: Barriers to
224
221
Progress," the National Commission for Employment Policy statedthat a lack of fluency in English is the main source of labor marketdifficulties of all Hispanic subgroups. The second major reason forHispanics' poor labor force experience is a low level of education.
Policies that emphasize short-term skills training and immediatejob placement ignores this large segment of the Hispanic popula-tion which requires English as a second language preparation orbasic skills remediation in order to qualify for skills training. Fur-thermore, other funding sources that have provided these servicesin the past, such as the WIN program, bilingual education, andadult education, have also been sharply reduced. In effect, we arecutting off all our opportunities and hope for these Hispanics whofind themselves relegated to the underclass of American societyand, may I add, at an alarming rate.
What can be done in the short run? Congress must take anactive role in monitoring the implementation of JTPA to insurethat funding is targeted to Hispanics, at levels proportional to theirrepresentation in the eligible population. Second, States must beheld accountable for servicing all disadvantaged communities, butespecially Hispanics, who have historically been underrepresentedin many parts of the program as we have heard this morning.
Third, funds must be set aside to address the educational and vo-cational needs of disadvantaged Hispanics and should be appropri-ated to community-based organizations, agencies best suited tomeet their special needs. Fourth, training contracts must providefunding that reflects realistic administrative costs, so that commu-nity-based organizations as well as municipalities can compete withState-subsidized institutions for JTPA allocations.
Fifth, additional legislation is required to provide long-term edu-cational preparation for Hispanics of limited English-speaking abil-ity and low literacy skills. Appropriate control and monitoringmechanisms must be established to insure that these moneys be co-ordinated with JTPA service delivery areas, providing Hispanicsand other members of disadvantaged groups with the necessary lin-guistic and educational competencies to qualify for JTPA program-ming.
Finally, I urge you to support the Community Renewal Employ-ment Act now under consideration by the House of Representa-tives. Funding authorized by this legislation will provide employ-ment opportunities to the most disadvantaged in areas of high un-employment through grants to local governments, and I think wehave covered this before.
The jobs created will benefit the local community through repairand maintenance of roads water systems, educational facilities aswell as conservation of public lands. Further, jobs will providemuch-needed social services in the areas of health care, emergencyfood shelter, and dependent care. According to a report by the U.S.Conference of Mayors, of the population targeted by this legisla-tion, only 36 percent now receive adequate health care; 14 percentreceive the day care they require; and just 4 percent are reachedby employment and training programs. Moreover, local officials arecurrently able to meet only 43 percent of the demands on their re-sources for emergency food and shelter.
26-464 0-83--IS, 22,3
222
These are urgent measures which I am proposing. As the pace ofsocial and technological change increases, we cannot afford toabandon to poverty the skills and talents of a significant minorityof American people. Nor can we risk the consequences of crime andcivil strife which are the likely consequences of doing nothing. Wemust act now to meet the short-term needs of the disadvantagedthrough job creation and to prepare for the manpower needs of thefuture through a revamped system of basic education and job train-ing.
To address the problem in the long run, we must come to gripswith the real issue of the stubborn dilemma between employmentand inflation. Until then, most of our training and employment ef-forts will sidetrack the number one issue facing our economy, ourpolicymakers, and our people.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.Mr. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Borrero.Mr. BORRERO. Madam Chairwoman, I have another appointment
where I am expected at 12 o'clock. With your permission I would toget to that quickly.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you. What we can do is take questions so thatyou can go to your next appointment. At this time, I would like toyield to Congressman Torres.
Mr. TORRES. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to make a requestthat I be able to submit questions to the last witness in writing,and we may get responses from him. I would yield back the rest ofmy time. ,
Mrs. HALL. Congressman Richardson?Mr. RICHARDSON. I wanted to ask a question, Madam Chairwo-
man, of Mr. Yzaguirre. I also have a noon commitment, but Iwould like to listen to Mr. Yzaguirre.
Mrs. HALL. Dr. Borrero, we want to thank you for your presenta-tion. We certainly appreciate your coming at this time. And sinceyou have an appointment, the subcommittee will excuse you.
Next, we will hear from Mr. Raul Yzaguirre, president, NationalCouncil of La Raza.
STATEMENT OF RAUL YZAGUIRRE, PRESIDENT, NATIONALCOUNCIL OF LA RAZA
Mr. YZAGUIRRE. Thank you, members of the subcommittee andmembers of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. Let me indicatehow gratified I am to take advantage of this first opportunity totestify before two of the newest and most prominent Members ofCongress from the Hispanic community.
Chairwoman Hall, Congressman de la Garza, CongressmanTorres, my name is Raul Yzaguirre and I am president of the Na-tional Council of La Raza. I would like to thank the CongressionalHispanic Caucus for inviting me to testify on such a crucial issueas Hispanic unemployment. Unemployment continues to be an ex-tremely serious problem of national proportions. For our minoritiesand disadvantaged citizens, high unemployment rates aggravate al-ready difficult employment barriers. The August 1983 unemploy-ment rate for the white population was 8.2 percent; in sharp con-trast, however, the unemployment rate for the Hispanic population
226
223
was 12.9 percent. The Hispanic unemployment rate is consistently60 percent higher than the rate for the white population. Whereasunemployment for the general population did not reach 10 percentuntil last year, the Hispanic unemployment rate has been above 10percent since 1976. Hispanics are the youngest, and least-educatedU.S. subpopulation, with an alarming poverty rate of 30 percent.Employment is thus a primary concern. The House of Representa-tives will soon consider passage of H.R. 1036, the Community Re-newal Employment Act. We support passage of that bill because itwould provide employment opportunities in community improve-ment projects for the long-term unemployed. However, we areequally concerned with the implementation of the Job TrainingPartnership Act, and such issue will be the primary topic of mytestimony.
Statistics reveal that Hispanics are a visible and growing con-stituency, with multifaceted problems which require national at-tention. The National Council of La Raza, in its role as a nationalHispanic civil rights organization representing Hispanic organiza-tions in 20 States, the District of Columbia, and the island ofPuerto Rico, supports a strong Federal employment and trainingpolicy which focuses on providing disadvantaged individuals withthe marketable skill necessary to compete in the labor market. Asthe Hispanic population grows in importance, the need to improvetheir labor market position will become more critical.
The Federal Government has attempted to respond to the specif-ic unemployment problems of youth, the economically disadvan-taged and minorities, However, some of their programs have notbeen successful in meeting the needs of these populations. The Fed-eral Government launched programs in the 1960's, namely theArea Redevelopment Act of 1961, designed to provide economic op-portunities for economically depressed areas. This was followed bythe Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, designed toprovide training to those persons who had become unemployedthrough technology or other structural changes in industry.
Not until 1965, however, was MDTA amended to shift its focusfrom the technologically displaced individualessentially meaningthe white communityto the economically disadvantaged commu-nitymeaning, of course, the poor and minorities. The shift infocus occurred as a result of increasing unemployment among eco-nomically disadvantaged individuals and President Johnson's "Waron Poverty." Due to the Federal Government's active targeting ef-forts, Hispanic participation rates curing the MDTA era accountedfor 15.7 percent of the targeted individuals.
The 1970's witnessed the birth of a new federalism and its decen-tralized policies. Thus, the Federal Government decentralized em-ployment and training programs, giving increased responsibility tothe States. In 1973, the Comprehensive Employment and TrainingAct [CET/kJ was enacted to provide job training and employmentopportunities for the economically disadvantaged, unemployed, andunderemployed persons. CETA gave States and local governmentsthe major responsibility for planning, administering, and operatingmanpower programs in their jurisdictions.
In 1978, with a population about 50 percent larger than it wasduring the 1960's, Hispanic participation under CETA accounted
224
for 10.2 percent of total clients, a decrease of one-third from MDTAlevels. CETA was amended in 1978 to increase Federal oversightand targeting, and Hispanic participation increased to 14 percentof the total client population.
This experience leads to the clear conclusion that strong target-ing and Federal oversight are necessary to assure equitable accessto employment programs by Hispanics and other disadvantaged in-dividuals. Decentralized programs void of targeting provisions andFederal oversight, such as the Job Training Partnership Act, aremore than likely to underserve Hispanics.
As you know the JTPA will replace CETA as the primary Feder-al employment and training legislation, effective October 1. JTPAseeks to prepare youth and unskilled adults for entry into the labormarket and to afford job training to those economically disadvan-taged who are in need of such training to obtain productive em-ployment. Thus, its purposes are not unlike those of CETA.
In order to accomplish such goals, the act espouses four majorprinciples: (1) Decentralization; (2) Private sector involvement inpolicymaking; (3) Strictly defined training, with little or no supportservices; and (4) Performance impact, in terms of the process.
The National Council of La has grave concerns that theprinciples embodied by the Job Training Partnership Act may limitthe access to JTPA programs by Hispanic clients and Hispaniccommunity-based organizations.
JTPA illustrates a shift in duties between the Federal and Stategovernments. Whereas under CETA, employment and training pro-grams were under the responsibility of the Federal and local gov-ernments, under JTPA, these programs fall under the responsibili-ty of the State and local governments, with the State as primaryactor and the Federal Government assuming a less than minimalrole.
JTPA decentralizes the employment and training programs. Itrepresents a further delegation of Federal authority to the States.It greatly increases State responsibility for the authority over localoperations, imposing States as a layer between Washington andlocal programs. In addition, the Governor's authority to setstatewide goals and objectives, enforce coordination criteria, andreorganize service delivery areas [SDA's] represents a potentiallyimportant shift in authority from the local to the State level,
In line with the concept of decentralization, the Department ofLabor has issued regulations for JTPA which give States maximumauthority to interpret most provisions of the law. The effect ofDOL's approach is to create a policy and oversight void. Thus, itwill be up to the States to fill this void in a manner consistent withthe intent of the law. Granting such discretion to the States mayresult in a lack of uniform protections for Hispanics, other minor-ities, disadvantaged and powerless individuals who have relied onthe Federal Government as the source for enforcement of protec-tions such as nondiscrimination, targeting, and equal access to em-ployment programs.
What I am trying to say, members, is that not all the Governorshave the same sensitivities as Governor Anaya.
With the so-called New Federalism as its rationale, the Depart-ment of Labor issued regulations much briefer than the law itself.
226
225
These regulations granted an inordinate amount of discretion toStates in interpreting the law. The result may be 50 different inter-pretations, with hardly any uniformity. For example, the final reg-ulations issued by DOL did not establish nationally consistent defi-nitions of a participant's family and what constitutes familyincometwo constructs fundamental to determining participanteligibility.
If there is no national standard by which individuals will bedeemed eligible, each State has the authority to define eligibilitydifferently. A possible scenario may be one in which a participant'sfam"v income is deemed to high, making him or her ineligible forservhes in one State, whereas in .a neighboring State, the defini-tion of family income may be flexible and thus make the same par-ticipant eligible for services. The Department of Labor's hands-offapproach encourages varied and conflicting interpretations. Suchmay result in lawsuits based on inconsistent State definitions,thereby denying citizens the equal protection of the law.
An effect of decentralization is to decrease Federal oversight toaccomplish stated national goals. The 1978 amendments to CETAincreased the Federal role in targeting efforts. Whereas CETA pre-scribed services to be made available to significant segments of thepopulation, JTPA merely suggests that local programs shall makeefforts to provide equitable services to substantial segments of theeligible population. The differences in language illustrate a strongmandate for targeting in CETA versus a permissive approach totargeting the JTPA. JTPA is a training program whose contentincluding determination of the client populationis left to the dis-cretion of the States.
The provisions regarding the job training plan further demon-strate the lack of targeting which accompanies JTPA. UnderCETA, each prime sponsor was required to submit a plan to theDepartment of Labor detailing the services it planned and mannerin which those services would be delivered. Provisions of CETAspecified 37 different elements that had to be included in the plan,including targeting provisions which established a requirement foraffirmative services to one group or another: significant segments,low-income persons, veterans, youth, persons with limited Englishproficiency, offenders, et cetera. Although JTPA calls for a jobtraining plan to be submitted to the Governor, not to the Depart-ment of Labor, it specifies only 10 provisions that must be ad-dressed by the plan and none of these call for targeted or affirma-tive or priority services. Under JTPA, the success of the job train-ing plan, from an equal opportunity perspective, will depend on thecommitment to this ideal by State and local officials. There is noFederal oversight to prevent civil rights violations, thus the Stateis responsible and accountable for any acts of discrimination on thepart on the part of its subrecipients.
Since JTPA delegates to the service providers and the States dis-cretion in deciding who is eligible to receive services, specific ef-forts to insure equal opportunity and nondiscrimination become allthe more critical. With the authority that is conveyed to the Gover-nor to administer a job training program is a concomitant responsi-bility to see that the program is implemented free of any discrimi-nation and provides equal opportunity for all,
22d
226
JTPA's strong focus on private sector involvement is useful sinceprivate business and industry are the primary sources of unsubsi-dized employment. The act mandates that half the membership ofthe private industry councils WIC's), which govern JTPA activitiesat the local level, be from private industry. The PIC, in partnershipwith local elected officials, has overall policy and oversight respon-sibility for a local job training program. JTPA differs from CETAby granting the PIC's a far more definitive role in the policy designof employment programs. However, it is questionable whether pri-vate industry alone can design a policy targeted to meet the needsof the economically disadvantaged and the long-term unemployed.Therefore, in order to achieve a responsive policy, it is necessaryfor the PIC's to reflect constituencies such as small and minoritybusinesses, community-based organizations, as well as minority in-dividuals including Hispanics. Yet, initial information suggeststhat this is not the case.
Small business generates two-thirds of all new jobs in the UnitedStates. However, the language of JTPA is permissive on the issueof small and minority business representation in the PIC, simplyproviding for such interests to be represented whenever possible.The possible exclusion of these groups in the PIC's may result in aplan that ignores the dynamics of employment generation.
Community-based organizations CBO's plow a dual role as advo-cates and service providers for their constituencies. They areknown to have a high success rate in reaching the disadvantaged.Representatives from CBO's are to be chosen as part of a broad andextremely varied group that also includes representatives from or-ganized labor, educational agencies, economic development agen-cies, and the public employment service.
The statutory definition of a community-based organization is ex-tremely broad. Therefore, Hispanic community-based organizations,which act as service deliverers, may be excluded in favor of an or-ganization which represents a more general constituency.
Unlike specific provisions mandating private industry represen-tation, the act does not contain language which mandates specificnumbers for CBO representation. Exclusion of CBO's may result inpolicies which do not effectively address the means for reaching thedisadvantaged.
The language of the law with respect to PIC representation ofsmall and minority business, minority individuals, and CBO's istherefore, tenuous at best. Such ambiguity grants discretion to thelocal elected official, who may or may not appoint such groups tothe PIC's. For example, in Houston, Tex., where the Hispanic popu-lation in central Houston is 31.2 percent, there are only 4 His-panics in a PIC of 42 members. In Long Beach, Calif., where theHispanic population is estimated to be between 15-18 percent,there is only one Hispanic in the PIC. These cases demonstrate thepercentage of Hispanic PIC representation does not approximatethe percentage of the Hispanic population in those cities. It is cru-cial that these interests are represented in the PIC planning anddecisionmaking process. The law's ambiguity creates an excuse forlocal governments to exclude such groups. However, in order tocreate a true partnership, efforts must be made to include the
227
public, private and voluntary sectors which is needed for a success-ful employment and training program.
The Job Training Partnership Act eliminates all public serviceemployment sloth and nearly eliminates funds for training sti-pends. CETA provisions relating to public service employment andmaitiatory allowances have been repealed.
JTPA requires that 70 percent of funds be spent on training. Theremaining 30 percent of funds may be divided between a maximumof 15 percent for administrative costs (a 5-percent reduction fromCETA) and 15 percent for supportive services, wages, and allow-ances.
Many Hispanic and other community-based organizations maywant to participate in JTPA but are effectively excluded becausethey do not have the non-JTPA resources to absorb the administra-tive responsibilities required by JTPA, such as management infor-mation systems, fiscal accounting, or do not have the capacity toprovide such systems while staying within the 15-percent cap onadministrative costs. As a consequence, larger established organiza-tions like the employment service, school systems, and training in-stitutes which do have sizable administrative staff funded by otherresources can absorb some of the administrative costs of a JTPAprogram. Therefore, the limits on administrative costs may, pre-clude some of the most effective recruiters and service providerssuch as CBO's from participating in the Job Training PartnershipAct. If CBO's are effectively excluded from JTPA, then there willbe a lack of organizations which effectively reach the disadvan-taged, such as the Hispanic community, thus causing Hispanic par -ticipation rates to plummet.
The lack of training stipends also affects the access to trainingprograms by the truly disadvantaged, including many Hispanics.Due to family income needs, there may be a strong tendency forindividuals to take any job which becomes available, rather thancompleting training. This is a particular problem for the Hispaniccommunity which has a high poverty rate and also a high rate ofunderemployment. If the disadvantaged want to take advantage ofa training program, they would have to incur additional expensessuch as transportation and child care costs, and suspend personaljob search efforts. The lack of training stipends may effectively ex-clude Hispanics and other minorities from participating in a train-ing program. The law allows needs-based payments necessary forparticipation; however, they are to be determined under a locallydeveloped formula or procedure, which will mean a lack of uniformstandards, thereby resulting in 50 different needs-based paymentformulas.
The 15percent cap on supportive services may be waived if cer-tain conditions are met and the waiver is requested by the PIC.This assumes, however, that the PIC will be sensitive to the needsof the disadvantaged and will want to extend greater service tothose who might benefit most from training but who also can leastafford the extra costs of child care or transportation. If a waiver is
ranted, however, the service delivery area is still subject to meet-ing national performance standards. This may have a chillingeffect because the continued application of performance standardsregardless of a waiver may affect not only the local area's decision
31
228
to apply for one, but also the Governor's decision to Paprove awaiver.
Asking for a waiver means that a local area needs more moneyto provide supportive services for its participants. This implies thatthe participants are economically disadvantaged. The economicallydisadvantaged are the clients with severe economic and education-al problems. Thus, they are also the most likely to fail to meet per-formance standards based on positive placements. Consequently,service delivery areas may be denied waiver because of their in-ability to meet performance standards due to the characteristics ofthe specific population they serve. As a result, the ability to servethe most disadvantaged will be severely coastrained if supportiveservices are not increased through a waiver.
In the past, the Federal Government prescribed at great lengthand detail how training programs were to be conducted, emphasiz-ing the means rather than the ends. JTPA's emphasis on results isa major legislative shift in social policy. Performance standards,more than any other part of JTPA, are critical to the outcomes-based system. Their importance is emphasized by the fact that upto 6 percent of the funds allocated to the States can be used toreward high performers, and that sanctions must be applied to con-sistently poor _performers. While the benefits of such accountabilityare obvious, the inherent danger of performance standards basedon positive placement is that it may encourage creaming. Creamingis the tendency to select as clients persons who are least disadvan-taged and easiest to place. Unfortunately, Hispanics and other mi-norities do not fall in this category.
Community-based organizations [CBO's] are affected the most byperformance standards emphasizing placement. It makes littlesense to have performance standards which develop unit costs perplacement without considering the nature of the client and anyspecial problems such client may have. Clearly, the more disadvan-taged the client, the more likely that effective program serviceswill cost more and run longer. Consequently, CBO's, as well asother entities, may be encouraged to "cream" by serving clientswho are least disadvantaged, have least need for employability de-velopment, and are easiest to place, in order to meet the perform-ance criteria and get refunded. The practice of "creaming" wouldtotally neglect the intended and most important beneficiaries ofthe act, the disadvantaged and structurally unemployed. The mech-anism for ensuring that services are delivered to those moot inneed is targeting, a mechanism which is nonexistent in the JobTraining Partnership Act.
The principles espoused by the Job Training Partnership Actmay have a severe negative effect on Hispanic participation rates.The concept of decentralization erodes Federal oversight over tar-geting and monitoring efforts, thus endangering equal opportunityto training programs by the disadvantaged and minorities. His-panic, small and minority business and CBO representation in thePIC's may be low due to the lack of strong language mandatingsuch representation. The restriction on training stipends may havea chilling effect on those individuals who are most in need of train-ing but who can least afford the extra costs associated with train-ing such as transportation and child care. The emphasis on per-
229
formance standards based on positive placements may cause orga-nizations to "cream" participants, thus, ignoring the disadvantagedand long-term unemployed.
Factors affecting Hispanic participation, whether as clients or asservice deliverers, must be identified early, and policy makers andcommunity leaders must become aware of the need to remove ob-stacles to such participation and encourage full Hispanic involve-ment in JTPA planning and implementation. The manner in whichJTPA was drafted, in such amibguous and non-targeted language,may lead to a potential disaster. It also points out the short-sight-edness of policymakers. Hispanics are the fastest-growing constitu-ency and the youngest subpopulation group in America. Therefore,Hispanics will be the bulk of the future labor market. It will be thesalaries of future Hispanic workers that will support the social se-curity system. Thus, in order to achieve a long-term benefit for so-ciety in general, it is critical to have a Federal employment andtraining policy which effectively addresses the needs of the His-panic community. The Federal Government has to assume the re-sponsibility for assuring equitable Hispanic participation and non-discrimination. The Federal Government has to develop a policywhich meets the economic, educational and social needs of His-panic and other minority clients. For until all groups are equitablyserved, then can we say that America is back on track to an eco-nomic recovery.
Mrs. HALL Thank you very much. We appreciate your presenta-tion. I am very sorry that we have to leave at this time, but it ispart of the process.
At this time, the Chair will call a brief recess for the purpose ofgiving members time to vote. Of course, we will return and resumethis hearing. We are in recess until the sound of the gavel.
[Recess taken.]Mrs. HALL The hearing will resume at this time. We would like
for our panel please to be seated, as well as our guests.Our next witness is Mr. Pedro Garza, executive director, SER-
Jobs for Progress.
STATEMENT OF PEDRO GARZA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SER-JOBSFOR PROGRESS
Mr. GARZA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, CongressmanTorres and Congressman Roybal. I would like especially to thankthe subcommittee for having invited the three representatives ofcommunity-based organizations to testify before you this morning.
Community-based organizations, after all, are the organizationsthat deal one-on-one with the client community, and it is the clientcommunity for which legislation has been designed and is being im-plemented.
I would like to say that on Monday afternoon of this week, I hadthe opportunity to meet Governor Anaya in Santa Fe to discussHispanic community-based organizations and JTPA in the State ofNew Mexico. I would like to say for the record that if we only had49 other Governors like Governor Anaya, we would all be muchbetter off.
2331 : .
230
One thing I learned back in the eighth grade was that no matterhow bad things are, they can always get worse. I remember at thetime, as a 14-year-old student, along with my other classmatesbeing quite unsatisfied with a very tough, harsh English teacher.We lost her at midyear, and we were all very happy, until we gotthe replacement in the spring. It was at that time that we missedwhat we used to have. The replacement made her predecessor lookvery good. I suspect that in this instance, JTPA likewise will makeCETA look very good.
In prepared testimony before the relevant committees, backwhen JTPA was being drafted, SER-Jobs for Progress went onrecord as saying that there was no need at the time to overhaul theemployment and training system in this country. We felt we had agood system in place that needed fine tuning, but there was noneed to dismantle the system in place of a new one. We felt thatthe existing system provided an opportunity for governors to par-ticipate more fully. CETA had a role for business and, there wasroom to fine tune and make the system more accountable.
So why was CETA overhauled? I would like to take you back, inorder to understand JTPA, to 1962 and MDTA, the Manpower De-velopment and Training Act. At the time, MDTA was developed inresponse to the overwhelming unemployment needs in this coun-try, and a call for Federal intervention in the job market. At thattime, the national philosophy called for strong Federal action to ad-dress the problems of poverty. In time, there was a backlash; abacklash against central power in Washington. We saw politicalideas like revenue sharing and decentralization and returningpower to the people come to the forefront.
MDTA was scrapped, and its place was taken by CETA. The pre-dominant political philosophy at the time was, "Let us make localelected officials accountable to the people. Let us make the pro-grams accountable to local elected officials, instead of to Washing-ton." So we dismantled the system of the MDTA and turned toCETA.. CETA worked. CETA was in place. CETA was amended andfine tuned, until the philosophy of this country changed. Instead ofplacing responsibility and accountability under local elected offi-cials, as CETA did, a new administration decided to place responsi-bility on the private sector. CETA was no longer saleable, and wehad a new system that responded to giving business the delivery ofmanpower services.
In my opinion, there was no need to overhaul the system. Wesimply responded to another philosophy: making business officialsaccountable. So we have JTPA. We have had JTPA now for almosta year, and what we have seen in the course of the year is essen-tially the formulation of a legal and administrative framework fora new delivery structure We have lost a year in the delivery ofservices to the clients, while we have been readjusting the adminis-trative machinery.
There was no need change CETA. There was no need to take sti-pends away from participants, Again, political philosophy tookover. In the old days, one of the strongest elements in employmenttraining programs that the money went into the hands and thepockets of the needy through training allowances and through sub-sistence allowances. That was good, until the philosophy changed.
2 3 4
231
The philosophy said, "We must not make those people wards of thestate. We must not make those people dependent on government.Let us take those stipends away."
So we are very concernedthose of us who work day in and dayout with the client communityabout what is going to happen tothe hard-core unemployed who need that subsistence allowance,who need the training and who cannot afford to go into a trainingprogram because they have a family to feed. We are very con-cerned about the lack of stipends and what that will do to His-panics who need employment and training services.
That is by way of background. It is recognized that we are notgoing to return to CETA. We recognize that we need to adapt to anew system. We are professionals, and we do deliver services at acompetitive price for our community. But we do see the need forcontinued congressional oversight of JTPA, and we will look foramendments to JTPA as the experience demonstrates that we needto target on those most needy, and to ensure that community-basedorganizations are included in planning, operation, and evaluationof the system.
We are going to insist that those double standards that apply tocommunity-based organizations be erased. In Los Angeles, in theSER program, we are told that if there is an urban league, that weare duplicating services. As I look at the private sector, I can see aSears Roebuck store on one corner and a J. C. Penney store on an-other corner. Nobody talks duplication. What they talk about iscompetition, and competition is good. But if you see two organiza-tions working with the community, they say it is duplicating serv-ices.
As I look at elementary schools, and a new elementary school isopened, nobody says that the elementary school is duplicating whatanother elementary school is doing. But if you see a SER-Jobs forProgress Center and then you see an OIC program, they tell youthat you are duplicating. So we have double standards that stillapply to community-based organizations.
When we go out there to compete, we operate performance con-tracts. But the word used is "funding." We are social programs;therefore, we are "being funded". If General Dynamics gets a con-tract from the government, it is a contract, not "funding." We op-erate performance-based contracts. We deliver services. We provideproducts for American business and industry. We are a business,and we have performance contracts, and that should be recognized.We are not out there receiving grants and not being held account-able.
There are double standards in performance for community-basedorganizations and minority groups. If an elementary school is notperforming, they receive management assistance or technical as-sistance. The principal may be changed, or a number of remedialactions are taken. Nobody suggests that the school be closed. Asyou look at community-based organizations throughout the coun-try, if one of them should not be performing, the first remedialaction recommended is "Wipe it out." So that is what happens.There is no talk about technical assistance or management assist-ance. The first remedial action for a CBO is to close it down.
235
232
That is a double standard that should not be allowed in thiscountry, because we are a business, and we do perform and we doneed that assistance.
In closig, I would like to say that the biggest challenge facing usin the community and us as Americans in this country is Federaldeficits. I am terrified when I consider the size of the projectedFederal deficits over the next 3 to 4 years. I am terrified because Iknow that once again, efforts will be made to balance the budgeton the backs of the poor. The poor have already paid too high aprice for efforts to balance the Federal budget, and I respectfullyrequest our elected officials to resist all efforts to reduce the size ofFederal deficits by reducing services that are so vitally needed bythe Hispanic and other minority communities of this country.Thank you so much.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Garza.At this time, I would like to introduce another Member who has
joined us, The Honorable Robert Garcia of New York, sitting to myright.
We would like to take a few minutes to ask questions, and aftersuch time we are going to seat the next panel.
The first question I would like to ask is for Dr. Jusenius. Duringyour presentation, you talked about high unemployment amongHispanics, and you listed as the main cause the inability to speakEnglish, which in turn results in the second reason, and that ofcourse was poor education, and you mentioned discrimination.
On Tuesday, the first day of our hearings, we had a number ofpersons come in and talk about bilingual education and the variousprograms which have been established at universities around thecountry and in our public schools around the country. I representnorthwest Indiana and, of course, about 12 years ago we estab-lished one of the most effective bilingual programs in the history ofthis country. Our program has been used not just in northwest In-diana but throughout our State and in many parts of our country.
In your opinion, would more effective bilingual programs andmore programs in general to meet a larger number of Hispanics beperhaps a key factor in improving the ability of Hispanics toachieving in school?
Mr. GARZA. Yes.Mrs. HALL. Thank you. I have other questions, but I am going to
hold them. I see the lights are on, which means that a vote is prob-ably taking place. Instead of asking more questions, I am going toyield to the other congressmen so that we can try to wrap up thequestion period before we have to leave to go to the floor to vote. Iwould yield to Congressman Garcia.
Mr. GARCIA. I would yield at this point, Madam Chairwoman, tomy colleague from California.
Mr. TORRES. I thank my colleague for yielding. I have just onequick question to one of our panelists. In light of the time con-straints, I will make it a short one and ask for a short answer ofMr. Yzaguirre.
As he and other panelists are aware, I serve on the Small Busi-ness Committee of the House of Representatives. It is of great in-terest to see to the development and the enhancement of smallbusiness in America as a viable job producer.
236
233
I know that in your presentation your testimony was short be-cause we had to leave on a vote, but it touched lightly on the ques-tion of small businesses, and I would like to ask a question. Whatshould be done so that small business is not overlooked in the im-plementation of the Jobs Training Partnership Act? Obviously thatis an important factor. Could you address yourself to that?
Mr. YZAGUIRRE. Indeed. As I indicated in my testimony, the vastmajority of new jobs that are created are created by small business,so it is an important segment. The problem is that the law as it iswritten now, and the regulations as they are promulgated by theDepartment of Labor, do not really focus on the involvement ofsmall business in the Private Industry Councils.
I think one of the things that needs to happen is that the Con-gress needs to impress upon the Department of Labor to make surethat it encourages more small business participation. Then I thinkJTPA must be amended in such a way that it makes very clearthat small business must be an important and critical part of thisprogram.
Mr. TORRES. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Iyield back my time.
Mrs. HALL. Thank you, Congressman. At this time, the Chairwould call on Congressman Garcia.
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.To my good friend, Mr. Garza, I just caught the tail end of your
statement. You were concerned about the deficit and communitiesthroughout America. Your concern for that, I guess, is that theyare going to try and cut back this deficit on the backs of the poor.Is that what I got out of it?
Mr. GARZA. That is correct. As we look at our experience in SERas a community-based organization, by 1980 we had 55,000 peoplein our system being trained in jobs. As a result of the cutbacksover the past few years, we now have 25,000 people in our system,and that means approximately 30,000 individuals who are goingwithout training, who are going without employment and, there-fore, without income. They are either wards of the state or, again,caught up in that cycle of poverty that we used to hear so muchabout in the sixties.
Mr. GARCIA. What would your recommendation be on how to cutback?
Mr. GARZA. There is no question in my mind that we have to cutother areas of the Federal budget. Defense certainly could betrimmed back. Certainly the Pentagon could be made more effi-cient, more effective. Expenditures that were projected to be madethis coming year could be deferred for another year. Weapons sys-tems and their development could be deferred over time, and wewould also question the need for some of those new very costlyweapons systems.
I believe that this country has the resources to address the needsof the poor and the needs of the unemployed. It is a matter of willand wanting to make these resources available, to address theseproblems.
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you very much.Mrs. HALL. Thank you. The subcommittee would like to thank all
of our panelists. We certainly appreciate your endurance and your
26-464 0-83-16C 4.
237
234
excellent presentations. We do regret that we will have to call an-other brief recess for the purpose of going to vote. After the votewe will return and call the next panel. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 1:25 p.m., in room345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Robert Garcia, presiding.
Mr. GARCIA. I would like to call to the witness stand the follow-ing panel: Arnold Torres, Delores Huerta, Richard Fajardo, JackShaw, and Stan Davis.
This panel is going to offer statements to this subcommittee onthe subject of immigration. As many of you know, immigrationreform has been a subject talked about in the Halls of Congress forquite a few years. I believe the panel that we have before us is adiverse group with varying points of view. Of all the issues thatconfront us on a community in the year 1983, there is no issue thathas more of an impact than the Simpson/Mazzoli bill, the Immi-gration Reform Act of 1983.
In opening this portion of there hearing of C mgressional His-panic Caucus and the Post Office and Civil Service Committeehearing, I would hope that those of you who are with us today un-derstand that this hearing is not only timely but extremely impor-tant. With that, and not because I believe in Women firstonly be-cause your name is first on the panelwe will hear from DeloresHuerta, first vice president of the United Farmworkers.
STATEMENT OF DELORES HUERTA, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT,UNITED FARM WORKERS, AFL-CIO
Ms. HUERTA. My name is Delores Huerta. I am the first vicepresident of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Wehave membership in our union in California, Arizona, Texas, andwe represent workers also in the States of Illinois and Washington.
I really would like to begin by asking the Hispanic CongressionalCaucus, because I know that you feel very strongly about this legis-lation, to say to you that we out there really depend on this caucusto be the loudest and the strongest voice in dealing with the immi-gration policies that are being made in Congress. I really believethat the eyes of the world are on the United States of America tosee whether Hispanic people are going to be treated properly ornot.
From this morning's panel, we heard of the terrible economiccondition in which we find ourselves, the worsening condition inwhich the Hispanic workers in this country find themselves, and asHispanics we are going to be probably the group that will be themost strongly affected by the Simpson/Mazzoli bill. We reallycannot say that we are going to make life better for other people inother parts of the world if we cannot make it better for people whoare here.
This piece of legislation, I think more than any other, would di-rectly affect the lives of thousands and thousands of Hispanics.
If you look at the history of the United Farm Workers, interest-ingly enough, when we had the previous contract labor programs,
233
235
like what we had in the fifties and was terminated in the sixties, Ido not think it is any accident that the union of farmworkers wasnot able to even get organized until after that was terminated. TheUnited Farm Workers came into existence after the termination ofthe first Public Law 78. Even though in that previous law they hadall kinds of so-called protections for workers, they really did notexist. Workers really did not get any kind of protection.
We now see in the Simpson/Mazzoli bill again an attempt tobring in workers, many hundreds and thousands of workers to bebrought into agriculture. We feel that this is just a ploy and at-tempt to destroy the 20 years of organizing that we have done inthe field. We have been able to bring farm workers some segmentof decency into their lives, so they have a guaranteed job, wherethey have a medical plan, where they have a pension plan, wherethey have job security.
We feel that the Panetta amendments specifically go so far as tosay that the Department of Labor will be only in an advisory ca-pacity and will not have any enforcement power, not that we wouldhave much faith in the enforcement powers that they would haveto begin with, because again under the old Public Law 78 the en-forcement powers were in the Department of Labor, and they werenever enforced.
I have recently been working in the border town in San DiegoCounty, and I just want to relate to the subcommittee some of theexperiences that I have had first hand in organizing farm workersand in trying to negotiate contracts in that area. This, I think, re-lates to the cutoff date of the amnesty provision of January 1, 1982.
In one month alone, there were 36,000 deportations in that area,the San Diego area. Those deportations, I want to say to you, werevery selective. Many of the agricultural growers are in that areawho have refused to negotiate contracts with the union. I mustadd, these are very large contributors to the Republican Party. Yet,these growers who have gotten workers from as far away as theState of Oaxaca who do not even speak SpanishThese workers donot even speak Spanishand they live in the ground. They do nothave housing for these workers.
As union organizers, it is very difficult to get into those workersbecause they are behind locked gates. Interestingly enough, in allof these raids that have been made on the border towns near SanDiego, these particular workers have never been bothered by theImmigration Service. These particular growers have never beenbothered by the Immigration Service. So I am sure that if the am-nesty provisions were extended, these workers would then qualifyfor amnesty. The other workers who have crossed the border andtried to find jobs as well as they can every day have been deported,some of them many times, would not qualify for amnesty.
Again, we think the Border Patrol is working as a union buster,as it has always done. The farm workers who attempt to unionizeWe recently lost an election in the Delano area because the BorderPatrol moved in just before the election and took out the leadersand deported them. If there was any possibility at all that any kindof immigration bill should say that workers who are trying to beunionized, whether they be farm workers, whether they be gar-ment workers, or whether they be construction workers, that they
239
236
have to get some kind of amnesty from the Immigration Service,that they need more protection not less protection. If we do nothave that, then they are always going to use the Border Patrol as away to scare workers.
There is one employer in San Diego County who has his own im-migration gate. Workers do not have to go through the regularborder crossing. This particular employer has his own immigrationgate, and the people come in from Mexico to his farm. If they areprounion or if he finds out that they have been to a union rally orto a union meeting, then he cuts off their entry to his farm. Liter -ally, people just cross the border and go to work.
The reason I am bringing this up is, I think a lot of the Simpson/Mazzo li bill is not going to work because the real intention of thebill I think is for it not to work. I want to say that we are onrecord supporting both the Hawkins and the Miller amendments,and we would hope that it would be possible that these would beworkable, but we have very serious doubts whether this wouldwork or not.
I do not think this is anything that should be taken very lightly.I think certainly the life of our union, whether we will be able tocontinue to organize farm workers and get them into union con-tracts, get them decent wages, get them a medical plan, get themdecent housing, rests very much on what happens to this legisla-tion. I think it will be only the voice of the Congressional HispanicCaucus fighting loud and saying, "No, we do not need these addi-tional people" that is the only way that our union literally canhave any kind of future.
We have worked for the last 20 years to have the little that wehave, and we can continue to organize farm workers so they canhave their own union. And interestingly enoughand this is some-thing people do not think aboutin the Salinas area, where wehave good contracts for our workers, where our workers maketwice the minimum wage or three times the minimum wage, inthat county workers there do not have to get food stamps. They areable to buy their food. If you take other parts of the State of Cali-fornia, where we do not have the union, most of the farm workershave to get food stamps and they have to depend on relief. Theyhave to depend on taxpayers' money. If workers have a union, theydo not have to depend on taxpayers' money. They can supportthemselves.
If we are really sincere about amnesty, then I think that amnes-ty should extend to deportations also. How can we say that we aregoing to give people amnesty on one hand and then we are givingthem daily deportations on the other hand.
We are talking about jobs here. Maybe we need a count of howmany unemployed there are in each area before we talk about ex-tending these programs. Certainly the countries to the south needhelp. They need economic assistance. But the problem is much toocomplicated. We cannot have a quick-fix. It is not a quick-fix prob-lem. We are talking about the lives of people, and it takes a lotmore study.
This legislation cannot be passed just to take care of the prob-lems of, say, a few agricultural employers or a few special interestgroups. It cannot be done because we are talking about the lives of
240
237
people. I think that now we have an Hispanic CongressionalCaucus, where before we did not have one in the Fifties and theSixties. Now we have larger numbers of Hispanic organizations.Now we have a union for farm workers. We must let them knowthat they cannot do it to us again like they did it before. Thankyou.
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you very much, Ms, Huerta.For the rest of the panel, as you can probably see, there is a vote
taking place on the Floor. I am going to have to run over. I prom-ise I will be back, just as soon as that vote is completed. So we willstand in recess until after this vote is terminated.
taken.]Mr. GARCIA. Before we ask the next panelists to read their state-
ments, I would like to introduce the dean of the Congressional His-panic Caucus, who is also the chairman of the Appropriations sub-committee dealing with many of your agencies, he is also chairmanof the Select Committee on Aging. I guess more importantly for thepurpose of this hearing, he has been the champion of the fight tostop the Simpson/Mazzoli bill from being enacted in its presentform.
With that, I would like to ask Congressman Roybal if there is anopening statement he would like to make at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD R. ROYBAL. A U.S.REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. ROYBAL. I would like to thank Chairwoman Hall of theCensus and Population Subcommittee for affording the Congres-sional Hispanic Caucus the opportunity to participate in thesehearings. I share your confidence that these hearings will serve asa valuable tool for policymaking decisions affecting the Hispanicpopulation in this country.
We all know that the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill is per-haps the most complex and controversial legislation that has beenpresented to the Congress of the United States. We will be dealingthis afternoon with various sections of the bill. One of those is em-ployer sanctions for hiring undocumented workers. A nationalidentification system to carry out this provision is probably themost dangerous part of this bill. I feel that if this passes, we willall be carrying identification passes or dog tags and be asked toidentify ourselves as those people in Germany were forced to doduring the Hitler regime. I hope that does not happen.
We will also look into the matter of expanding the temporaryworkers' program, the legalization program and the conditions oflegalization. All these are areas of great interest, and I am pleasedto see such a distinguished panel making a presentation this after-noon.
The panel will represent the various sections of the country.From the Immigration Service, I am pleased to welcome Mr. Shawand Mr. Davis. I also welcome Ms. Heurta, Mr. Torres, and Mr. Fa-jardo. I sincerely believe that you will add a great deal to this dis-cussion. I also hope that some comment will be made with regardto the Hispanic Caucus' position regarding this piece of legislation.So in this particular panel, we want to explore all these things and
238
feel free to make comments with regard to any of these subjectmatters, and I thank you for being present today.
Mr. GARCIA. I would also take the prerogative as the Chair toinvite Mr. Jake Alarid, who is the national chairman of the Ameri-can GI Forum, a very respected group here in America, to come upand take a place as one of the panelists. You will have to bear withus, Mr. Alarid. Unfortunately, we did not get you the request intime, so you were not placed on the roster. However, I want toassure you that we will give you a few minutes to express theviews of the American GI Forum, a very respected organization inAmerica.
To sort of shuffle things around, so that we get a different per-spective, I would like to ask Mr. Shaw and Mr. Davis to testifynow.
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. SHAW, DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION RE-FORM ACT OFFICE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERV-ICE; ACCOMPANIED BY STAN DAVIS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OFFICE; AND RICHARD NORTON,DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. SHAW. Fine, Mr. Garcia. I think because Stan I havebeen so intimately involved in this process, as well as ir. Norton,from the employer sanctions side, I asked Mr. Norton to comealong in the event-
Mr. GARCIA. Can I have Mr. Norton's full name for the record?Mr. SHAW. Richard Norton.Mr. GARCIA. And his position at Immigration is?Mr. SHAW. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Investigations,
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Shaw,Mr. SHAW. Because of brevity and our desire to adhere to your
schedule, Mr. Garcia, we have prepared a slide presentation. I willget into that and allow for interruptions or questions to be raisedany any given moment, but I will try to move through it swiftly. Toput the slides into a context, however, I will ask my colleague, Mr.Davis, who brings really the examinations expertise from a longcareer in the service. There are many problems, questions or con-flicts that may be raised in so many varying parts of different bills,both on the Senate side and the House side. Stan is really my ex-aminations expert, and he will start to give you the historical con-text from which INS legalization program stems.
Mr. DAVIS. The administration has supported the concept of le-galization in immigration reform. They feel that it is necessary foroverall immigration reform. Because of the extreme importance weplace on these provisions, the service has for some time now devot-ed a high level of planning effort to develop a program which wehope will be as successful as possible.
In the very beginning of our planning, we set three basic objec-tives for ourselves. One was to create a structure outside of Immi-gration, maae up of organizations of various kinds, a wide range oforganizations who dealt with problem.; of the alien community,whom we thought the aliens could be encouraged to go to, to seekinformation as to whether they individually qualified for legaliza-
244
239
tion for residence, without any fear of being detected by Immigra-tion in the event they were not qualified.
The second objective was to develop a structure, an INS servicestructure, that would provide facilities and personnel at all possibleplaces in the United States where you might expect illegal aliensto be residing so that they could arrive or go to these places andfile their applications without undue hardship.
The third objective is more procedural than anything else, butthat was to develop a procedure which would be cost-effective andprovide results, that is responses to these decisions on applicationsin a timely manner. The process itself, that of receiving and consid-ering applications, we see as a nonadversarial fair process, notunduly burdensome to the applicants. It, of course, will be designedto grant residence where it is called for but withhold it when it isnot called for.
The facilities that we would develop or establish for the mostpart will be outside of present INS offices. We will, in this instance,attempt to establish these facilities where it will be the most con-veninent to the public. Our offices at the present time are notalways that accessible, and if you have experience with them, it isoften difficult to get in.
The offices that we are envisoning are not normal INS offices.They are put there for the specific purpose of receiving applica-tions just for legalization. The people that we have there will bedevoted strictly to that function. They will be trained for that func-tion. Many of them will be people who are not now in INS. We willhave to start quite a number of them. We will do this, we believe,in a very short period of time, that which is allowed by versions ofthe legislation.
The legalization program, I would like to emphasize, is not an en-forcement program, We would like to have only those people in ourlegalization system who are eligible for residence. We would like tohave those who are not eligible screened out before they get to us.Our goal would be 100 percent approval, if that is at all possible.Obviously, that will not be met,
approval,that is the goal. We will be
concerned about such things as the forgery of documents, and I donot think anyone wants that. But we are most concerned aboutgranting this very substantial benefit to everyone, and I say every-one without exception, who is eligible.
Our publicity program will be extensive. We will, in all mannerpossible, publicize the legislation, with the provisions of it so thatthe people can clearly see for themselves whether they are or arenot eligible. We are thinking of areas of the country where thenormal media methods do not reach too well. We naturally will goto the national media. We will have a rather extensive trainingprogram for the non-INS organizations and individuals I mentionedpreviously. We will train them initially in the requirements of thelaw, what they have to look at with the person who comes in foradvice or assistance. But we will also be there in case there arespecific problems or where there is need for additional information.We will be behind them but not out there.
Anyone, without exception, who wants to go to one of the organi-zations that we hope we can reach an agreement with can go therewithout fear of action by INA. We have never considered, nor do
243
240
we want, for any cooperating organization to furnish us any infor-mation concerning any individual or individuals who come to thembut who are found ineligible. The rest of the legislation will takecare of that.
Our objectives, as I said in the beginning, are very simple, verystraightforward. There are no hidden objectives. Now, Jack has ourslide show here, and what it does is exhibit graphically generallyhow the program will be set up and how it will be structured.Thank you.
Mr. SHAW. Again, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of brevity, I amgoing to try and move through these fairly rapidly. The focus is onthe legalization program within the legalization service within theImmigration Service, those aspects of Simpson-Mazzoli which, if en-acted, would translate into a legalization program,
Obviously, it fits into a context. While there are provisions of theSimpson-Mazzoli legislation that have an overtone to them thatclearly provides INS additional enforcement tools, legalization isrecognized as a program that is required to address the equitiesthat have been earned by a substantial part of the alien populationthat may be affected by such legislation.
The general provisions of the law that are depicted here reflect aconcentration on S. 529. It is a two-tier system which is differentin the House versions of the bill. But again, legalization would beimplemented under the responsibility of the attorney general, INSwould have to articulate by regulation its eligibility requirementsto the extent that they were not specifically spelled out in the law,and the program would have to be implemented within 90 days ofpassage, and it would have to be carried out within one year afterINS went into operational mode.
A key part of the draft provisions of law now and of the Senateversion would allow INS to work with community-based organiza-tions, voluntary organizations, and State and local agencies in seek-ing assistance in identifying prospective applicants, and explaing tothem their opportunities for qualifying for a legalization program,for providing them assistance in filling out the INS forms, and forreferring them with a completed application to INS staff legaliza-tion sites.
This is not terribly clear, but the schematic would start on theleft, and it is an attempt to depict the legalization process. The ap-plicant is on the left. He would collect his documentation thatwould allow him to receive consideration for legalization, and hecould seek out at his choice a local organization with which he wasfamiliar, a community-based organization which INS would identi-fy through advertisements, to provide him risk-free information onthe dimensions of the program, what are its requirements, whatare the forms required, the medical inspections required, the esti-mated costs involved to provide him this information in informa-tion packets without contact with the Service.
On the other hand, if the applicant chose to come directly toINS, he could come into the third tier immediately. It is his optionto determine whether he wants to seek information and wants tohave counseling or information or observations made concerninghis possible qualifications for acceptance through a distinctly sepa-rate organization or come to INS. Eventually having completed his
244
241
forms, having secured what he considers to be adequate documen-tation, he would come into the middle diamond, which begins forthe first time the element of risk in the process, in the sense thathe now comes to INS for a preliminary adjudication.
INS would receive and accept from the applicant his completedforms and, for the first time, accept a fee. That would bring himinto the system. The information would then travel downward tothe processing box, and in order to expedite the volume of applica-tions in this systemwhether it is 2 million or upward, or 4 mil-lion or in excess of thatand depending on what the dates are inthe law, we have designed a system that we feel could easily ac-commodate through 95 to 99 separate legalization sites throughoutthe United States 2.3 to 4 million applicants with their completedforms. To process those readily and not get caught in a paper snarl,INS has designed and has in existence now a facility design for acentrally located facility at some location in the United States thatwill house up to 250 INS employees and 400 to 500 contract em-ployees, with the purpose of establishing a records center, an appli-cation processing center, which integrates the FBI and CIA back-ground and security checks, which involves quality assurance over-sight by on-site INS supervisory personnel, but will basically be acontract service, contract operated facility.
Many of the applications will be computerized, automated, inorder, once again, to assimilate the work load of 2 to 4 million ap-plications within the period of 1 year. We have projected that oncean application is received at a legalization site and mailed to thecentral facility with the review of the files and the necessary secu-rity checks, INS believes and is basing its estimate on the fact thatan application can be adjudicated and a card issued within 60 to 90days after receipt.
The bottom line continues on and turns to the left, and at thatpoint, after the record checks, after a final review by an INS ex-aminations person at the facility, the applicant will either be noti-fied that his legalization has been accepted, or he will be notifiedby letter that he has been denied and appeal rights under suchdenial.
Absent his appeal or that appeal failing review by a review panelof INS examinations personnel, the failed applicant would be noti-fied that he was not accepted for legalization and he would begiven an opportunity. His case would then be referred to the rou-tine work load of the district offices. For the first time then, thatperson, unless there is a serious criminal offense involved or amajor espionage charge against him, determined by the back-ground checks, his failed or denied case would be referred to thenormal work load to be handled according to existing service prior-ities. To that extent, the applicant would be at risk of deportation.
We believe, however, with the screening process that we have setup, with the facility of counseling organizations and communitygroups involved in the process as buffers, we believe that 95 per-cent of applications received by INS would be favorably adjudicat-ed. We operate on the assumption that no one is going to come intothe system at risk if he knows that he is not entitled and cannotdocument his residence, cannot meet his residency requirements.
4243
242
Based, again, on the dates in the Senate version, we have brokenout what we anticipate to be those eligible for and those that wouldqualify under a legalization program. With the dates of January1982 in the House version, those numbers would change, and wewould leave that with a single-tie item. Three-and-a-half to fourmillion persons would come into the system and attempt to estab-lish their qualifications for legalization, versus 2.3 million.
Those are planning figures, only to allow us to determine sitesand to staff them with a reasonable level of staff that could carrywhat is the foreseeable burden of the program. We are not in thepredictive intelligence area, saying that 2.3 million people will infact come into the system. And if a year from now I am wrong inmy planning estimates, I will have had to make considerable ad-justments in the staffing levels and the legalizatioii sites that weintend to establish. As a planning figure, we ;eel that we canhandle anywhere from 2 to 4 million persons coming into the pipe-line where constructed.
Very briefly, the assumptions on which legalization planning hasbeen based is that we are going to minimize, to the extent possible,adverse impacts on the existing INS structure. Therefore, we havedesigned a different field organization, a separate field organiza-tion. Legalization is not going to be part of INS district office oper-ations. It is designed to operate at separate facilities outside of thedaily activities of our existing district offices.
Applicants will be charged what we feel is a reasonable expensefor participating in the program and for recognizing what we feelare substantial benefits. There will be costs. We will promulgatecriteria for counseling organizations. We intend that they be broadbased and that a number of nationally recognized counseling orvoluntary organizations and, to a lesser extent, other qualified or-ganizations may participate in the program. We are operating onthe assumption that the process has to be quick and streamlined,and it will be mostly ADP support.
Again, very briefly, we break out the overall responsibility forwhat INS has to do in order to have a successful legalization pro-gram, It has to recruit and train people in a relatively short timeframe. It has to establish legalization offices around the country,working with GSA and working independently if Congress gives usdirect procurement authority. It has to make adjudication in allcases. It does not delegate its adjudicatory responsibilities underthe law. It has to monitor the program to make sure that volun-tary organizations who are participating community groups do afair, efficient, and a credible job. And it has to coordinate a mas-sive public information campaign in many different languages tomake sure that the program is assessed from the point of view ofparticipation.
Very briefly, the district offices clearly will play a role. Even ifthey do not have responsibility for directing the program, they aregoing to be required to give information. They are known entities.They are there. Many people will come to them for brochures andinformation. Follow up investigations of reported fraud cases willbe handled through the existing investigative staff of the districtoffice.
2461
243
At the legalization offices, the following activities will occur. Wewill provide information and train the organizations that cooperatewith us, We will be colocated with them. They will be at separatesites. However, if they are giving out false or erroneous informa-tion or directing people to INS with incompleted or erroneouslyfilled-out forms, quality control will require us to take correctiveactions with those organizations.
We will receive the applications and fees and make preliminaryadjudications and forward the information on to a central facilitythat I described before. The central processing facility sites will in-tegrate all the records and review processes that now go on man-ually in most INS offices. From this process, a machine-generatedcard should be issued to any one of three categories: To a perma-nent resident; a temporary resident in the event those distinctionsstand up under the law; and to a Cuban-Hatian entrant, accordingto specific provisions of the law.
Basically what this slide says is that we can't do it all on dayone. But incrementally, after 90 days after passage of law, INS ex-pects to have a field structure in operation. It has to get a publicinformation program under way immediately. It has to distributemillions of brochures which GPO will print very readily. It has tokick in with a massive contracted-out public information program,which will take 45 to 60 days to start up. And within 90 days, INSfeels it will be in operational mode and have doors open to receivelegalization applications either for requesting information or forsubmitting applications in 54 major cities.
We tried to do a design right now of how this project is handledtoday within the Service without the law. We are set up as aproject in red, and we are functioning. We are integrated with allthe programs of the Service. I have representatives working underme, separate and apart from the Service structure. We are dealingnow through designated interim area managers, people who arewearing two hats: they do their normal functions, nd they work forme for purposes of planning and putting together the skeletal out-line of the structure in support of legalization.
With that, sir, I appreciate the time you have given me. Simply,the last two charts specify some of the tasks that the Service hasthought of and are already moving forward to the extent that wecan, in planning brochures, speech packages, information packets,and ask immigration tapes in several languages that will be addedto and distributed to our existing district office structure to supportthis program in the event the law is passed. Thank you.
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Shaw.Is there anything that you would like to say regarding employer
sanctions?Mr. NORTON. Not unless it is to respond to some direct questions
you have, which I would be happy to answer.Mr. GARCIA. OK. Then we will save you for the end.I would like now to call Mr. Richard Fajardo, who is representing
the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Mr.Fajardo, we will take your statement and enter it in its entirety inthe record. What I would ask you to do is to give us a summary ofwhat is in your statement.
(-' : 24 7
244
STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. FAJARDO, STAFF ATTORNEY,MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Mr. FAJARDO. Thank yv,i, Mr. Chairman. I would like to takethis opportunity to thank Congresswoman Katie Hall for setting upthese hearings, and obviously I would like to thank yourself andCongressman Roybal for being here, and Susan Herera for helpingto coordinate and put everything together.
My name, as you mentioned, is Richard Fajardo, and I am an at-torney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and EducationFund. We have been very interested in immigration simply becauseit has such an impact on so many Hispanics in our community. Inparticular, I think everybody knows what our position of Simpson-Mazzo li has been: we are very much opposed to the bill, and wecontinue to oppose the bill. The primary reason is because of theemployer sanctions and the discriminatory impact that it will haveon the Hispanic community.
In particular, we are concerned because of what we have alreadyseen with various operations that the INS has conducted to identifyundocumented aliens and try to remove them from the work force,and the impact these efforts have had on Hispanic citizens and per-manent resident aliens, What we are concerned that the Simpson-Mazzo li bill will do is to aggravate and create a suspect class ofpersons. Many persons in our country equate immigrants with un-documented immigrants. They equate Hispanic persons of allkinds, whether they be citizens or permanent resident aliens withthe undocumented population. This bill, I think is going to aggra-vate that assumption.
Employers themselves are going to refuse to hire Hispanics fortwo reasons. One, of course, is that they do not want to risk havingto pay fines for persons who may turn out to be undocumented andidentified as such. But more importantly, one thing we have al-ready seen is that the INS is not going to have the kind of re-sources it needs to enforce the law equally as to all firms. What theINS is going to do is target their enforcement. The way they havedone that in the pastwith Operation Jobs, with the raids thatwere conducted in major citiesis to identify those communities orfirms that hire high numbers of Hispanic individuals. Employers,in order to avoid being targeted, and to avoid the INS coming on totheir work place, are going to try to reduce the number of His-panics working in their firms.
What is interesting is that in a time of recession what is going tohappen is that job opportunities for Hispanic are going to be cur-tailed. It will make their high unemployment, now up to 15 per-cent, even higher.
Another problem we are concerned with is that employers arenow being asked to operate as INS agents. Employers are the onesthat are going to be enforcing INS law. Whenever that happens,they are not going to be having the kind of background and train-ing that INS agents themselves have. As a result mistakes aregoing to be made, and those mistakes are going to be costly for His-panics.
A couple of proposals have been submitted, I guess, in order totry and take care of this discrimination. The bill currently relies on
246
245
title VII in order protect Hispanics and other individuals whomight be discriminated. The problem is that title VII has somevery glaring loopholes.
First of all, it does not apply to any firm that hires less than 15employees. More importantly, it has no application to seasonal em-ployment. These are the two major types of firms that hire His-panics. The other problem is that title VII permits discriminationon the basis of alienage. That is, if a firm can come up with areason why citizenship is required to work at that place, they candiscriminate against persons who are permanent resident aliens.
The other thing that has been discussed is the possibility forcurbing or slowing down the discrimination aspects with the so-called good faith defense. That is, if an employer keeps records ofthe persons that come up to them seeking employment, and if theylater turn out to be undocumented, they can raise this good-faithdefense that they checked the documentation before they hiredand, therefore, are not susceptible to the sanctions.
The only problem is, that provision protects employers; it doesnot protect employees. The problem that we are concerned with isnot so much the problem where a person comes up and shows docu-mentation and the employer takes a risk and hires the person.What we are concerned with is where a person comes up andshows documentation and the employer says, "I do not believe thatdocument to be accurate," or the employer who intentionally dis-criminates against the individual, saying, "I want more documenta-tion." The employee in that situation is not protected.
What we are supporting is the Hawkins amendment, which doesprovide an antidiscrimination claims process. It does specificallyprovide protections for those individuals not covered by title VII.However, we are not supporting the Hawkins amendment becausewe think Hawkins is going to cure the defects of the bill. It willnot. If this bill goes through, the Hawkins amendment will providesome minimal protections, some remedies, that Hispanics can lookto protect themselves in the event they do lose their jobs.
But recognize, again, that this is an after-the-fact remedy. Onceemployees have been fired, it is still incumbent upon them to go tohire a lawyer, to press their claim, to prove, not only that theyhave been discriminated, but also that they are documented. Theburden is placed on the employee, and it should not be there.
Another problem with the Hawkins amendment, as we see it, isthat it is unprecedented in the history of civil rights legislation.Hawkins is designed to take care of discrimination that is inherentin the bill itself. That is unprecedented. Usually, civil rights legis-lation is designed to take care of discrimination that is already ex-isting in our society.
What makes this whole thing even more puzzling is that employ-er sanctions are not going to work. Indications from studies havebeen that employer sanctions have not worked in the countriesthat have used them. The GAO did a study that indicated this.Also, California has a law that makes it illegal to hire undocu-mented aliens, yet undocumented aliens are part of that society.
I should also say, just briefly to cover some of the other issues,we are also opposed to any effort to increase the temporary-workerprogramthat is, to increase the number of foreign workers
24J
246
coming into the country, without keeping the restrictions necessaryto protect: one, domestic workers, to make sure they get a firstcrack at jobs, and two, foreign workers, from exploitation or beingused to undercut the domestic labor market.
We do, however, support the Miller amendment, again becausewe think this has the minimal protections that are necessary toprotect both domestic and foreign workers.
We are adamantly opposed to the Panetta amendments. Wethink it is too open a system, and it provides almost no protectionfor anybody, either domestic or foreign worker.
Finally, as to legalization, we obviously support the program. Weobviously would like to see as many undocumented aliens come inand be a part of our society as possible. We are very supportive ofthe 1982 cutoff date, and would be opposed to any move to roll itback. We are also very supportive of the one-tier system, whichgrants permanent residency to all persons who meet the eligibilityrequirements.
We are concerned, however, that there are other obstacles in theprogram that may weaken the efforts to bring in undocumentedaliens. We think that any legalization program should be designedto bring in as many persons as possible within the program. Wealso think that the eligibility requirements should be very clear,very concise, and very simple. We also think that legalizationshould not be combined with any enforcement activity. If personsfeel that there is going to be a risk that if they go through thisprocess and lose, if they are denied this legal status, there may bedeportation proceedings filed against them, that word will get outvery quickly, and it will subvert any effort to get a legalization pro-gram off the ground,
The only other comment I want to make is that there will be alot of talk in the near future about the cost of legalization. Just topoint out a couple of things about costs, there are two major as-sumptions that are very critical and very erroneous that currentlyare circulating. Right now, it is estimated that the cost of legaliza-tion includes more than just the cost of bringing people in underthe program and processing them. Under the current administra-tion, I believe, they set the cost of legalization upward of $11 bil-lion. We think that estimate is much too high.
Part of the reason is that they estimate that about 70 percent ofundocumented aliens, once they become eligible, will use socialservices. They get that number because of the refugees who havecome into this country, whether they be Cubans, Haitians, andsome of the Indochinese, who have used social services at aboutthose rates. However, it is important to note that the two popula-tions are very different. Refugees do not have jobs, they do nothave families, friends, and other social networks that can helpthem, that they can rely on in the event they lose a job or theyhave nothing to support them. Undocumented aliens, on the otherhand, do work. They are working now, many of them, and they dohave families and other relatives they can rely on.
There have been a number of studies that have indicated thatimmigrants, many of whom were undocumented before, use socialservices at a much lower rate, around 20 percent, and also have un-
5 00
247
employment rates that are much lower than the rest of the popula-tions.
With that, I would say that if this bill should pass, MALDEFwould like to see the Hawkins amendment as part of it and theMiller amendment. We would also work very hard to see that asmany persons who are undocumented as legalized as possible. How-ever, we do not think, in balancing all the various aspects of thebill, that there is anything in this bill that justifies the cost of em-ployer sanctions.
[The prepared statement follows:]
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD P. FAJARDO, STAFF ATTORNEY, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGALDEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
Mr. Chairman, my name if Richard Fajardo, and I am an attorney for the Mexi-can American Legal Defense and Educational Fund IMALDEF). MALDEF is a na-tional civil rights organization dedicated to preserving the civil and constitutionalrights of persons of Mexican and Hispanic descent. We currently have offices in SanFrancisco, Los Angeles, Denver, San Antonio, Chicago, Sacramento and here inWashington, D.C.
In recent years, issues concerning U.S. immigration policy and immigrant's rightshave become increasingly important to MALDEF, because of their significantimpact on our Hispanic community.
In particular, MALDEF has adamantly and actively opposed the Simpson-Mazzolibill since its introduction last year.' Our opposition to the bill is not to be confusedwith opposition to immigration reform. MALDEF, like many other Hispanic organi-zations favors fair reform of our immigration laws. However, MALDEF will neversupport any "reform" which includes employer sanctions as a vehicle for controllingundocumented immigration.
EMPLOYER SANCTIONS
The heart of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill is the employer sanctions provision. The billprovides civil and criminal penalties for persons or entities who employ, refer or re-cruit undocumented aliens. This legislation attempts to reduce the number of jobsavailable to undocumented aliens, thus removing the economic incentive that drawsthem to this country. However, employer sanctions will not work; it will not stop, oreven slow, the flow of undocumented immigrants. Moreover, sanctions will have asevere discriminatory impact upon Hispanics and other "foreign-looking" workerswho are citizens and permanent resident aliens.A. Employer sanctions will be discriminatory
MALDEF's main objection to the employer sanctions provision is that it will havean extremely discriminatory impact upon the Hispanic community. These discrimi-natory aspects of the bill will be manifested in a number of ways.
First, employer sanctions will create a suspect class of persons: all persons whoappear "foreign" will be suspected of being undocumented aliens. Undocumentedimmigrants are erroneously perceived to take jobs away from U.S. citizens, makeextensive use of social services and otherwise drain the U.S. economy. Many Ameri-cans perceive the problem of illegal immigration to be associated with Latin-Ameri-can or Caribbean immigrants. As a result these persists a pervasive anti-alien senti-ment in many parts of our country. Since many immigrants both documented andundocumented, share many of the same characteristics, including appearance, cul-ture, language, etc, it is not suprising that little distinction is made between legaland illegal immigrants?
' See. e.g Antonia Hernandez. Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Health and theEnvironment. Committee on Energy and Commerce (June 17, 1983), Antonia Hernandez, Testimo-
Ay_before the House Committee on Agriculture (June 15, 1983), John E. Huerta, Testimony btforethiHouse Subcommittee on Immigration. Refugee and International Law. Committee of the Judi-ciary (March 14. 1983): Joaquin Avila, Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigra-tion and Refugee Policy. Committee of the Judiciary (February 25, 19831.
2 Milton Morris and Alberto Mayo. Illegal Immigration and U.S. Foreign Policy. (U.S. Depart-ment of Labor. 1980)
251
248
In fact, it is not uncommon for communities where legal immigrants have settledfrom developing countries, for residents to "routinely comment upon the country'sillegal immigrant problems by reference to this entire new immigrant population'.'
The employer sanctions provision encourages and exacerbates these anti-aliensentiments. Employers are now asked to be vigilant against hiring "illegal aliens".Thus, all persons who exhibit those characteristics thought to be associated with un-documented immigrants will be scrutinized.
The immediate consequence of the sanctions provision is that employers, facedwith possible fines and penalties if undocumented workers are found in theiremploy, will simply refuse to hire Hispanics and other "foreign-looking" individuals.Even those employers who do not wish to discriminate against Hispanics, will, in aneffort to comply with the law, resolve questions of doubt in favor of not hiring anyone who might appear to be undocumented. In addition, employers who do wish todiscriminate may now defend their actions by claiming Hispanic applicants failed toproduce sufficient documentation to prove they were entitled to work.
A second way in which discrimination will surface is that INS will target theirenforcement operations to those industries and communities with high Hispanicpopulations. The INS does not have the resources to enforce current law, much lessthe new responsibilities the employer sanctions provision will impose. Thus, the em-ployer sanctions provision will be selectively enforced. In the past enforcement oper-ations, such as "Operation Jobs" and "Operation Cooperation", have been disruptiveto the work place and costly to employers. Therefore, employers will try to avoidbeing targets of INS enforcement by reducing their Hispanic work forces. This willresult in less job opportunities for Hispanic citizens and permanent resident aliens.
Finally, the law will effectively require employers to enforce INS immigration lawwithout the beneift of INS training. As a result, employers familiar with immigra-tion law, will make mistakes that will cost Hispanic citizens their jobs. During theOperation Cooperation the INS sought their cooperation of employers to identify un-documented workers and voluntarily remove them from the work force.° However,employers were unfamiliar with many of the documents which authorized an aliento remain in this country. Furthermore, the INS's computer files are not completelyup to date. Thus, they cannot verify the documented status of all permanent resi-dents or citizens.' The result is that Hispanic citizens and permanent residentaliens will have the burden of proving their documented status to the satisfaction ofemployers. Even then employers may still not wish to risk hiring Hispanics.
B. Current anti-discrimination laws will not protect Hispanic workersSupporters of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill argue that employees are protected from
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the "good-faith"affirmative defense for employers who check a worker's documentation.°
Employment discrimination laws, such as Title VI, will be of little value to aworker who is turned away from a job. First, Title VII protections only apply toworkplaces with 15 or more employees.' Title VII does not apply to seasonal em-ployment.° Secondly, alienage is not a protected class 9 Finally, job applicants donot have the time and resources to become involved in costly and time-consumingadministrative or legal procedures: their sole interest is in finding employment.
The "good-faith" defense protects employers not employees. Where an employerchecks documents and keeps records of the legal status of an employee who laterturns out to be undocumented, the employer can claim a "good-faith' defense. It isthought that by protecting employers who check the legal status of employees, em-ployers will be more willing to risk hiring Hispanics and so, will not discriminate.However, the "good-faith" defense only protects employers who inadvertently hireundocumented aliens It does not protect those Hispanic employees who are author-ized to work but are not hired because their documents are not believed to be au-thentic. Nor does this provision protect Hispanic employees from employers who de-liberately discriminate, claiming an employee has not provided adequate documen-tation.
IdSee, e.g U.S. Civil Rights Commission, The Tarnished Golden Door 70-73 (Sept. 1980) (An
excellent discussion of some of the impact "Operation Jobs" had upon Employers and U.S. citi-zens and legal resident aliens).
See Antonio Hernandez, Testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture, at 7-10 (June
15, 1983).42 U S.C. § 2000 (e)-22e)
7 42 U.S.C. § 2000 (e)-2(e)IdEspinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co 414 U.S. 86 (1973).
k ' 2 52
249
MALDEF does support the Hawkins amendment, which provides an administra-tive anti-discrinunaiton claims process MALDEF supports this amendment, not be-cause we believe it resolves the defects of the bill, it does not. However, we recog-nize that if this bill is passed, Hispanics will need some protection against the dis-crimination that is certain to occur This amendment will provide remedies that willhelp ameliorate the defects of the bill.
C. Employer sanctions will not workMALDEF is particular concerned that the employer sanctions provison, while in-
creasing the discrimination against Hispanics will not stop or even slow undocu-mented migration to this country.
A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) study,'° commissioned by SenatorSimpson and published in April, 1982, concluded that employer sanctions will noteffectively curb illegal immigration GAO surveyed 20 nations which had adoptedemployer sanctions The study found employers were able to evade responsibility foremploying undocumented aliens Insufficient resources and personnal prevented ef-fective enforcement of the sanctions provision Employers found to have violated thelaw were either left unprosecuted or were punished with fines too small to be aneffective deterrent
More importantly, the bill makes no attempt to deal with any of the other reasonswhy persons immigrate to the U S Many aliens come to this country to be reunitedwith their families, others flee from the political, social and economic upheavals oftheir home countries Nor does the bill make any attempt to cooperate with othercountries such as Mexico, to resolve the political or economic problems which en-courage aliens to leave those countries.
It is a mistake to think that there is an easy solution of the problem of undocu-mented immigration There is none A solution will require three things. First, bi-lateral or multilateral discussions with countries whose citizens come to the U.S inundocumented status The discussions are necessary to resolve the problems thatsend persons to this country in the first place Secondly, more resources must beprovided for border enforcement activities This can be done without "militarizing"our border Finally, MALDEF supports Increased enforcement of current fair laborlaws as a means of removing the incentive to hire undocumented aliens Employershire undocumented aliens in order to circumvent minimum wage and health andsafety laws By requiring the same wages and working conditions for all workers,there is no incentive to hire undocumented workers Why hire undocumented work-ers when employers can hire a citizen or permanent resident alien?
Finally, it is important to realize that Simpson-Mazzoli is not a jobs bill. ManyAmericans erroneously believe that Simpson- Mazzoli bill will free jobs for U S. citi-zens However, many undocumented workers are employed in jobs citizens will nottake After Operation Jobs, the national campaign of workplace raids conducted byINS, a survey of businesses targeted for the INS raids indicated that 80 percent ofthe undocumented workers apprehended in Los Angeles and Orange counties hadreturned to their former employment " Employers interviewed by the Los AngelesTimes stated that citizen and legal residents hired to fill the vacancies had left,either because the pay was too low, the working conditions were not to their liking,or the job was too demeaning.
Instead of freeing more jobs for U S citizens, employers' sanctions will have theopposite effect Sanctions will make It more difficult for Hispanics, and other "for-eign-looking" individuals who are authorized to work, to find employment
TEMPORARY WORKER PROGRAM
There are three proposed temporary worker programs being considered the Judi-ciary Committee's version of the H-2 program, the Education and Labor Commit-tee's version of the /1-2 program the Miller Amendment), and the Agriculture Com-mittee's version worker program (the Panetta Amendment). These temporary workerprograms, however, point out the contradiction of this bill Proponents of the Simp-son- Mazzola bill indicate immigration reform is necessary to control immigration os-tensibly to provide more jobs for U S workers Yet these temporary worker pro-grams provide for large numbers of foreign workers to enter the U S. to work
MALDEF opposes the proposed H-2 provisions as adopted by the House JudiciaryCommittee. In an effort to "streamline" the H-2 cert;fication process, the Commit-
10 General Accounting Office. Information on the Enforcement of Los Regarding Employment of Aliens in Selected Countries (August 31. 1982.)
"Larry Stammer and Victor M Valle. Most Aliens Regain Jobs After Raids. Los AngelesTimes (August I. 1982)
253
250
tee version has drastically reduced the amount of time in which the Department ofLabor can search for and recruit domestic workers. Furthermore, many protectionsnecessary for both domestic and foreign workers are not in the current H-2 pro-gram. All non-citizens working in the Unites States should be protected by the samecivil and labor rights as citizens. Anything less is economically unfair to U.S. citi-zens and permanent residents, and encourages the continued exploitation of non-permanent U.S. residents. The Judiciary Committee's H-2 program for temporaryworkers falls seriously short of satisfying this standard.
MALDEF does support the H-2 program as set forth in the Miller amendmentadopted by the Education and Labor Committee. The Miller amendment reinstatesthe 80 day certification, so that the Department of Labor will have 60 days to re-cruit domestic employees (not 30 days as under the Judiciary Committee version). Inaddition, the Miller amendment provides various protections to ensure that wagesand working conditions of H-2 workers will not adversely affect the wages andworking conditions of domestic employees. Furthermore, the amendment providesthat regulations promulgated under the Act be at least as stringent as current H-2regulations. Moreover, domestic workers can challenge granting of certificationwhere an employer has violated the conditions of the program.
MALDEF STRONGLY OPPOSES THE PANETTA AMENDMENT
This amendment is the latest version of the "Bracero program". It applies only toagricultural producers of "perishable" crops (however, the committee report lan-
guage refers to raisins and hops as perishable crops, this would effectively open thelaw to include most agricultural commodities). The Panetta is offered as an addi-tional program, so conceivably it can be enacted in addition to one of the H-2 pro-grams.
The Panetta amendment poses a number of problems. First, the amendment effec-tively eliminates the protections designed to protect both domestic and foreignworkers. Employers are no longer required to certify the unavailability of domesticlabor (as required in the H-2 program). The Department of Labor no longer recruitsdomestic laborers as part of the certification process. In addition, foreign workers nolonger have enforceable contracts with particular employers, nor are they guaran-teed employment. Thus, the Panetta workers will be competing for labor, not onlyamong themselves, but with domestic workers as well. Moreover, while some protec-tions are written into the amendment, they are ambiguous and, more importantly,,no enforcement mechanism is provided to ensure compliance.
Second, the Panetta amendment will aggravate the immigration problem ratherthan alleviate it. The visa issued will be good for up to 11 months. It is unrealistic tothink that foreign workers will work in this country for 11 months, return to theirhome countries for a month, only to return again to the U.S the following season.What is more likely is that workers will stay or live in the U.S. year round. Theproponents of the Panetta amendment argue that an incentive is built into theamendment to encourage employees to return to Mexico. A trust fund will be estab-lished in which employers are to make payments ordinarily made to governmentalentities, i.e. social security, unemployment compensation, etc. The foreign workerswould be allowed to apply for their portion of the contributions at the U S. Consul-ate in their home country when they return. However, in many instances theamount of money in the trust fund may not justify the expense of a trip home.
Thus, the Panetta amendment will create a permanent pool of foreign laborerswho will have no rights as permanent resident aliens. These workers will only beallowed to look for work and pay taxes. They are not even assured employment).MALDEF recognizes that under certain conditions labor shortages are created How-ever, in creating a temporary worker program to meet such shortages Congressmust not weaken the protections available for domestic and foreign workers. It isimportant that domestic workers be given the first opportunity to work and thatforeign labor not be exploited or used to undercut the domestic labor market. TheMiller amendment provides a realistic approach for securing foreign labor wherereal shortages exist while still protecting the interest of domestic and foreign work-ers.
LEGALIZATION
MALDEF supports a realistic and humane legalization program. As such,MALDEF supports a legalization program which grants permanent resident statusto persons eligib:e under a single cut-off date ofJanuary 1, 1982. We will oppose anyeffort to limit, restrict or eliminate this legalization program.
254
251
The legalization program is necessary to bring undocumented alien "out of theshadows"; to give them legal rights and a legitimate place in a society to which theyhave contributed a great deal in the form of labor, taxes and cultural diversity. Butto achieve such a goal the program must include as many persons as powible. Inaddition, the qualifications must be clear, concise and unambiguous. It must beclear to the undocumented alien who will be eligible and what is required of personsseeking legal status. It is also important that the offer to legalize be genuine andnot a pretext for massive deportations or repatriation. The legalization programmust not be tied to enforcement, otherwise undocumented aliens will not risk depor-tation in order to seek legal status.
WHY LEGALIZATION?
Legalization benefits all Americans. Undocumented aliens live in fear of detectionand deportation. As a result, many fail to report crimes, illness, violation of hous-ing, health and safety or labor laws. Thus, legalization integrates undocumentedaliens into the mainstream of American life, conferring obvious benefits upon thealiens, with corollary benefits upon all Americans.
The alternatives to legalization are impractical, disruptive and expensive. Massdeportation, such as those which occurred in the 1930's are very disruptive to thelives of millions, including citizens and legal residents (who are sometimes mistak-enly deported along with aliens). Moreover, deportations are deeply offensive to theprinciple of a free society which the United State holds dear.
In addition, deportations are ineffective in dealing with the problem of undocu-mented immigrants. Operation Jobs, the most recent large-scale INS deportationeffort, was not only ineffective in freeing jobs that Americans might want, but itwas also extremely costly financially and in terms of INS resources that were ex-pended. The operation cost approximately $1 million, was planned for two to threemonths, and involved temporarily transferring border patrol agents from the borderto the interior. This huge expenditure of funds resulted in the arrest of about 5,000aliens. According to Senator Simpson, approximately 500,000 aliens enter the coun-try each year. These figures suggest that even if the INS wanted to deport all alienshere illegally, the agency simply does not have the resources to begin such an un-dertaking.
THE COST OF LEGALIZATION
It is undeniable that legalization entails a number of costs. However, the cost esti-mates prepared to date are exaggerated. They include a number of erroneous as-sumptions which inflate estimates and give an inaccurate picture of the financialresponsibility of the undocumented alien population.
Any estimate of the cost of legalization must start with an estimate of the undoc-umented alien population. However, there are no solid reliable figures on the exactsize of such a population. In April 1983 report, the U.S. Bureau of the Census esti-mated that about 2.1 million undocumented aliens had been counted in the 1980census, with about 900,000 from Mexico." Given a fairly substantial undercount ofthe undocumented population, the Bureau estimates the total undocumented popu-lation at no more than 4 million, and possibly quite a bit less than that. The CensusBureau is the most recent population and is based upon a central court. Thus,MALDEF believes this estimate is the more accurate than the estimates preparedby the Congressional budget offices which put the undocumented alien populationbetween 5 and 6 million people.
The cost estimates of legalization reflects not only the cost of actually processingundocumented aliens into the program, but also the expected cost of social servicesused by the newly legalized immigrants. However, the administration estimates thatabout 70 percent of legalized aliens will use some form of social services This , sti-mate is based on the extend to which refugees used social services when they en-tered the United States (Indochinese, Cuban and Haitians). However, the employ-ment and welfare patterns for immigrant and refugee populations are very distinct.Immigrant, including undocumented immigrants, tend to have jobs, families, friendsand other social ties. Hence they are levs likely to use social services." Moreover,
',US. Bureau of the Census (April 198.3)."Alejandro Porter, Latin American Immigrants to the US Summary of a Six Year Study of
Their Adaptation (March, 1982)
255"
252
unemployment rates for immigrants, including former undocumented aliens, is con-sistently lower than for the population is a whole."
One of the most glaring ommissions in all legalization cost estimated is the failureto include the contributions of the undocumented alien population. Several studieshave indicated that undocumented workers pay taxes. In an analysis prepared forLos Angeles County, it was estimated that undocumented residents paid over $2.535billion in taxes." Of this total, about 58 percent was paid to the federal government,33 percent to the state, 4 percent to the county and 5 percent to other local govern-ments." Thus, the problem is not that undocumented aliens do not pay for services,but the revenues generated are paid to the federal government, while services aredelivered at the local level. For this reason, we support the House Judiciary Committee's plan to fully reimburse local government the costs they incur in the deliv-ery of services as a result of the legalization program.
In addition, undocumented aliens are an integral part of their communities. Theysupport these communities in that they buy goods and services and contribute theirlabor as well. Thus, in any evaluation of the cost of the legalization program, it isimportant to consider their dollar contributions, too.
CONCLUSION
There is a urgent need for immigration reform. However, immigration reformmust be fair and circumspect. It must include long range solutions. Therefore,MALDEF remains opposed to the Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Congress should not react tothe problem of immigration with short-term solutions or vendictive measures. Moreimportantly, immigration reform must not be enacted at the expense of U.S. citizensor resident aliens. Instead Congress should strike a balance of comparasion for im-migrants and safeguard for our national interest. Therefore, we urge you to opposethe SimpsonMazzoli Bill
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you very much. Now I would like to call Ar-noldo Torres, representing the League of United Latin AmericanCitizens.
STATEMENT OF ARNOLD() TORRES, NATIONAL EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS
Mr. TORRES. For the record, Mr. Chairman, my name is ArnoldoTorres, and I am the national executive director for the League ofUnited Latin American Citizens, the country's largest and oldestHispanic organization.
I would like to convey the national president's apologies for notbeing able to be here. He has had a scheduling difficulty and findshimself in another meeting.
Before I begin, as my colleague from MALDEF has indicated, Iwould like to thank Congresswoman Katie Hall, an outstandingfreshman Member of the 98th Congress and the chairman of thesubcommittee, and the staff director, who has been here through-out these hearings, somewhat delayed but very patiently here, thetwo members of the caucus who are here with us, and out out-standing work that Ms. Susan Nereda has done on behalf of thecaucus over a number of years now. It has been very good for anorganization like ourselves to work with someone who is so openand so easy to work with.
I would like to indicate for the record that the league has beenintricately involved in the debate on immigration over the last 3 or4 years. We testified, I believe, an estimated 15 times before Houseand Senate committees on this issue. The brief overview has been
"Id"Harry L ffufford. Chief Administrative Officer. Cast of Se' reices to Undocumented Aliens
(April I I. 1982)' "Id
253
given to you on the employer sanctions, For the record, the leagueis vehemently opposed to this legislation, under all circumstances.Regardless of what changes are made, the league always will be op-posed to this bill. As aggressively as it was from the beginning, itwill be so in the end, should this bill pass.
On sanctions, it is a foolish approach. It is a dangerous approachto tinker with. The idea of creating an employment verificationsystem, while protesting or contending that it is an ID only for em-ployment verification, is very dangerous because it eventually willbecome a national ID, regardless of what is on a piece of paper asthe legislation says that "nothing in this bill is to be construed asthe creation of an ID system."
The H-2 temporary worker programs, unlike the Senate bill, theHouse version has two other committees reporting, which presentthree different versions of H-2 workers. You have three versions ofprograms that, in essence, will continue to feed the insatiable appe-tites of agricultural growers in this country to secure their cheaplabor. If we do this again, Mr. Chairman and the outstandingmember from California, Mr. Roybal, we will be once again insult-ing the integrity, the lives, the dignity, the respect of America'sfarmworkers, which Hispanics make up a significant segment ofthat working group.
We will not only create additional problems, but we will in es-sence create a condition that will truly relegate these groups ofpeople to a substandard way of life forever. I think that is one areathat has not received enough attention from Congress and the dif-ferent groups lobbying on this issue. It is the poor American farm-worker over the decades that has always been abused. Their life-style, what they do, the economic conditions, their educationnothing has really improved for these people, and this bill reallydoes not do anything to alleviate matters at all. If anything, it cre-ates significantly more problems.
It is a major contradiction because, on the one hand, proponentsof this bill want to stop the flow and yet, on the other hand, theywant to bring in at least 500,000 or perhaps many as a millionworkers, depending on how well the agricultural sector can cheatand manipulate this program to come in and work on a temporarybasis.
Legalization is an extremely enticing concept. It is the conceptthat the proponents of this bill have used to hook the Hispaniccommunity and say that this is what we offer to the Hispanic com-munity and to other immigrant communities, We offer you salva-tion, ladies and gentlemen: you support this bill, and you will belegalized.
Many people have referred to this program as an "amnesty" pro-gram. It is not an amnesty program; it is a legalization program.And as a legalization program, it has specific criteria that must bemet before you can become legalized. It is not amnesty; amnesty isblanket, and this is not, by anybody's imagination, a blanket pro-gram of amnesty. It is what we in the Hispanic community refer toas the greatest obstacle course since that which ABC has featuredon our television screens.
Many people feel that if you meet the date, you get in under thedate, you can legalize your status. That is very far from the truth,
-2 5 7
254
because once you meet the date, that is only the first criterion, thefirst obstacle that you clear. There are many questions that stillremain unanswered:
Will the fraudulent use of a social security card or things of thisnature be held against a person? What kind of tax liability will aperson have; will they have to pay right away the taxes that theyhave not been able to pay or cannot track back? Will they be givena phase-in period, to pay over a period of time? Will this result intheir being rejected under the legalization program? If a person'schild has been on public service under the Federal Government,will that make that person ineligible? Had a person been on unem-ployment compensation over a period of time, yet has paid theirtaxes, been on unemployment compensation, would that require aperson to be removed from the legalization program and rejected?
These are things that have also troubled the INS and the repre-sentatives that are here at the table today. Unfortunately, thereare no answers forthcoming. To try and address this in legislationon the House floor will not meet with much success, because theopposition to this bill comes in large chunks because of the legal-ization program.
THE APPEALS PROCESS
In the House bill, you allow for an appeal on the final deporta-tion. The difficulty is: Will the undocumented people who are re-jected actually be insured of the appeal in a final deportation hear-ing? I would submit to this subcommittee that there are no assur-ances that can be made, in view of what the INS has done in thepast, its proclivity to encourage voluntary departures, without let-ting the person know that they have a right to go to court and totry to establish that they do have equities in this country.
There are simply so many things that make it so difficult for theINS to be the lead agency in this legalization program. For exam-ple, they are responsible for enforcing and responsible for the de-portations of many people in this country and now all of a suddento allow them to come into the country and legalize their status.There is a problem of image, a problem of public relations, that Ido not think ever will be overcome, regardless of how many Catho-lic churches, Baptist churches, or Lutheran churches are in the le-galization program.
There is a contention that sanctions will create jobs.That is the greatest contention the proponents of this bill have
made throughout the debate. I personally happen to believe thatthere is a displacement factor. Some of the studies that organiza-tions have done have covered this, but the displacement factor isone that can be addressed much better by other means than simplylooking for sanctions.
One person called me up and said that there were 11.3 millionundocumented workers in the country, and that was the samenumber, by coincidence, of the unemployed Americans in theUnited States. If you deported all the 11.3 million undocumented,you also would have 11.3 million back on the job. Nothing reallyindicates that is the case. Our studies indicate that Reaganomics ismore responsible for the economic hard times of this country, espe-
`25 d
255
cially for Hispanics, than anything that the undocumented havecreated.
We have already gone over the ID system. It is not simply goingto be used for employment. It eventually will be used to legitimizethe status of a person in this country. In order to get a job, youmust have this card or whatever system is employed. And the onlyway to get this card is to show that you are legally in the country.So employment verification cards are undesirable.
One last point is the fact that legalization really is not going tobring 2 to 4 million people. I know the INS would like to bringthose people forward, but will be unable simply because of theproblems that I indicated earlier.
The next point I want to make, with your indulgence, is on theforeign affairs and immigration issue. This bill does not addresssuch factors. This bill does not address how foreign affairs of theUnite-3 States have, in fact, increased the number of people cominginto this country. If we look at Nicaragua, we find that morepeople came to the United States during the Somoza regime andduring the civil war than you have now under the Sandinista gov-ernment. That is not an endorsement of the Sandinista govern-ment; it is simply a reality of population movement to the UnitedStates. The same is the case with Chile. The same is the case withArgentina. All of these factors have not been brought into thedebate.
That is why we cannot, as an organization, simply oppose the billon only one factor. We must oppose it on the fact that it is perhapsthe worst example of public policy devised by the Congress in thelast 20 to 30 years, next to S. 1, the criminal reform bill. This is amajor insult to the intelligence of those people who are reasonableand who are trying to address the problem in a reasonable manner.When the questions come, I will be more than happy to suggestsome of the alternatives that we have been able to try to present ina much more realistic, reasonable, and honest fashion.
I appreciate the fact that you have allowed me to go over the 5or 10 minutes you usually allow, but as you can see, there is somuch to discuss on this issue, I appreciate your indulgence.
Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Torres. I would like to finish this upby 3:15. This gives us about 20 minutes. I know CongressmanRoybal, who is heading our task force on the Simpson-Mazzoli bill,has many questions he would like to ask. But I am going to ask thenext panelist to make his statement.
[The following letters were submitted by Mr. Torres:]Avow,: 8, 1981
To: LULAC members and interested parties.From: LULAC National Office.Subject: Update on Civil Rights Commission and Nominations.
We are pleased to inform you that the House of Representative). approved on avoice vote the extension of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Specifically, theHouse approved a bipartisan bill which would extend the Commission for 5 yearsand allow for the removal of commisioners only if there is cause for such removal,i.e., malfeasance in office, neglect of duty. This language was very important for itclarified the legislative history of the Commission for an independent entity whichwas to be free of executive and legislative interference. This clarification was also aclear statement, from the House of Representatives that the President was not toremove seating Commissioners as he presently is attempting to do, (refer to LULACissues brief book for more details).
25a
256
This legislation H.R. 2230 now is before the Senate and se are the nominations. Itis absolutely imperative that you convey your views to your U.S. Senators and tothe members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during August recess for they willvote in September. The message should be:
DEAR SENATOR: We strongly urge your support for H.R. 2230Civil Rights Com-mission extension legislation and your opposition to the President'sefforts to under-mine the independence of the Commission by attempting to fire commissioners andstack the Commission. In addition, the Commission will be without Hispanic com-missioners for the first time since 1968.
LEAGUE or UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS,TEMPS, Alm., July 2.4 198.1.
ARNOLD Tons,Congressional Liaison,Washington. D.0
DEAR ARNOLD Tons: I am Frank Q. Carrillo, LULAC Far West National Vice-President. This lett,...r is the express our concern regarding continuance of our basichuman rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
To illustrate our concern I cite the following:The recent demostration of anti-bilingualism in Elizabeth, New Jersey. In my per-
ception is more racial bigotry than concern for use of languages. Another exampleof this negative attitude towat is other language Americans is that demonstrated bythe recently established organization called, U.S. English, which is promoting a con-stitutional amendment change to establish English as the officiat language of theUnited States.
In Tucson, Arizona four hispanic women excercised their First-Amendment rights,the right to Freedom of Speech and the right to petition the government for redressof their grievances one was jailed, fined, and all were indicited.
In Elizabeth, New Jersey a City of 106,000 population where several languagesare spoken and 25 percent of the population is Hispanic the Mayor ordered Englishbe spoken only.
It is my hope that America continues to progress in all spectrums of achievementsand human rights and that we don't forget that we are living in a pluralistic soci-ety. In 1949-50 I spent 17 months in Japan with the 24th Infantry Army Divisionand during that time I learned to speak Japanese which later he ped me to survive14 months during the Korean conflict. While touring Europe with my family I foundit very exciting to hear Europeans speak 4 or 5 languages. We don't need a "smokescreen" for the problems of this nation. Illegals are not responsible for the Economicand Social problems of this nation. Even today these people are the ones that arewilling to work the fields to put food on our table.
My purpose for this introduction is to indicate our strong opposition to the Simp-son/Mazzoli bill. At the LULAC National Convention in Detroit, Michigan in Junethe delegation went on record to oppose this most unAmerican piece of Legislation.
The authors of this bill apparently are not in tune with times or History. First ofall the bill would only affect Hispanic-Americans, regardless what others may say.We would be harassed, as would others, creating internal turmoil.
Employer Sanction penalizes both the employer and employee of Hispanic de-scent. Second, an employer should not be responsible to assume the authority of theImmigration Department. Strict enforcement of the borders on all persons enteringthe United States in essential and helping our neighbors to the South of the borderand Central America will eventually decrease the flow of illegals entering fromother countries.
We already have Labor Laws that if enforced will keep any employer from ex-ploiting any employee, legal or otherwise.
The Social Security Card is the best I.D. there is, we don't need to spend millionsof dollars to develop... - .other system.
America doesn't need to "tag" or suppress it's citizens, nor create internal dis-trust among its people. We have proven that when there is a National Emergencywe have sacrificed and never failed.
As an Officer of the League and member of the largest Hispanic American LegionPost in Arizona, Post No. 41, 1 publicly protest the Simpson/Mazzoli bill. NationalIdentification Systems should not be part of a freedom based society. These card sys-
tems have led to the eventual destruction of countless human beings in Europe andother parts of the World.
4'260
257
1, therefore, in behalf of the membership urge your support to help us defeat HR1510, keep the bill off the floor and vote against the bill should floor action proceedas well as the amendment being formulated by Mr. Hayakawa.
Respectfully yours,FRANK Q. CARRILLO.
STATEMENT OF JAKE ALARID, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, AMERICANCI FORUM
Mr. ALARID. Thank you, Congressman Garcia, for giving me theopportunity to speak at this hearing. My name is Jake Alarid, andI am the national chairman of the American GI Forum.
The American GI Forum, at its national convention in El Paso,Tex., has totally opposed the passage of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.We oppose the employer sanctions provisions of the legislation be-cause it would result in greater discrimination in hiring and layoffpolicies against all Hispanic workers.
We oppose the national work identification card system, or asMr. Roybal called it, the carrying of dog tags, because it intrudesinto the freedom of individuals and the respect of personal rights.
While we are in favor of some type of amnesty program, the billincludes a provision on amnesty which has the appearance of beingbenevolent, but in reality it will be nothing more than a mecha-nism to detect illegality of status and result in a major disruptionof our social life by deporting millions of Hispanics undocumented,many with U.S. citizen children in this country.
In addition, the American GI Forum totally opposes the policyand practice of mass, arbitrary, and discriminatory immigrationraids as places of employment and communities. The course of in-human events made it necessary for the American GI Forum to pe-tition the Subcommittee on Civil Rights to conduct a full investiga-tion by the U.S. Department of Justice of a reckless pattern of de-portation raids by the INS which has resulted in the death of 10California farmworkers.
According to eye witnesses, the INS and the U.S. Border Patrolraid squads have driven undocumented farmworkers toward bar-riers of water, having caused the drowning of 10 farmworkersstatewide in the following areas: Los Banos, West ley, Court land,Stockton, Sacramento, Tracy, Escalon, and Mantech. In addition,the raid squads have been seen running over and ramming into un-documented farmworkers, killing one and maiming two others.
Just recently, about 2 weeks ago, two border patrolmen in ElPaso, Tex., were indicted for the beating and handcuffing of a 12-year -old who appeared to be an illegal alien, even though he wasan American citizen.
Statistically, 50 percent of immigrants in this country are Mexi-can Americans. Yet, 90 percent of enforcement in communities isdirected to the Mexican American.
Ir. closing, we urge you to reject the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation.Mr. GARCIA. We thank you very much for presenting the GI
Forum's position to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.I am going to ask my colleague, Mr. Roybal, if he will immediate-
ly get into questions that he has so that we can expedite this hear-ing.
26-464 0-63---17
268
Mr. RovsAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to questionthe representatives from the INS to try to set a base to finallymake a determination as to how you are going to do all these veryambitious things that you have presented to the subcommittee.
Has your budget been increased in the last 2 years?Mr. DAvis. I believe the budget has been increased,Mr. ROYSAL. But is it not true that the budget has not been in-
creased beyond the inflation rate?Mr. DAVIS. I believe that is correct.Mr. ROYBAL. I sit on the Appropriations Committee, so I know
the answer to the question. The answer to the question is that ithas not in fact been increased beyond the inflation rate; that youare holding and probably will hold to the 1983 level in the continu-ing resolution that we are considering today in the Committee onAppropriations. Do you agree with that?
Mr. DAVIS. I agree with that.Mr. ROYBAL. Your level of operation, moneywise, will be based on
the 1983 level of expenditures. We are talking now about some-thing that will happen in 1984, if this legislation passes. You havestated that one of the objectives is to coordinate a comprehensiveprogram to gain control over undocumented workers. I assume thatat this point you have lost control over the workers; is that a cor-rect assumption?
Mr. DAVIS. I believe the testimony that has been offered in thepast has acknowledged that.
Mr. ROYBAL. Again we have established the fact that you haveacknowledged a flaw within your own operationsyou have lostcontrol of something over which you previously had control. Nowthat can probably be due to a lack of money; is that not correct?
Mr. DAVIS. That is one cause; yes.Mr. ROYBAL. Am I also correct in assuming that the number of
personnel stationed at ports like Los Angeles or Houston, that thepersonnel have not been increased in the last few years?
Mr. DAVIS. I cannot answer that. My feeling is, however, that atleast in Los Angelesand I am not sure about Houstonthereprobably has been some increase. There has been a move to reallo-cate resources on the basis of current workloads. I cannot speakwith any certainty, however, on the staffing of the Los Angeles Air-port, for example, now as opposed to 1 or 2 years ago.
Mr. ROYBAL. I know the situation in Los Angeles. I also knowthat the personnel that you now have throughout the country hasnot been redistributed to take care of the backlog that one can findin the city of Los Angeles, for example. On almost any day, you cansee in Los Angeles people surrounding the Federal building, seek-ing to adjust their status. I assume that all those individuals canadjust status if any attention is paid to them.
My question is this. How are you going to put into place a veryambitious program, in view of the fact that your funding has notbeen increased over the 1983 level and in view of the fact also thatyou cannot take care of those people who are eligible to adjusttheir status in Los Angeles, in Houston, in Miami, and in NewYork, and in various ports of entry elsewhere. How can you, with-out money, put this ambitious program into operation?
262
259
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Roybal, if I may, the straightforward answer toyour question is that we cannot, without specific funding authorityprovided by the Congress. The plan never envisioned any imple-mentation relative to any provision of Simpson-Mazzoli withoutseparate, additional, supplemental funding authority provided bythe Congress.
Mr. ROYBAL. How much money is authorized in Simpson-Mazzolifor this specific purpose? Not 1 cent.
Mr. DAVIS. For the legalization program?Mr. ROYBAL. For your program.Mr. DAVIS. There is no specific amount allocated for that. There
is a total, I believe- -Mr. ROYBAL. There is no money authorized in the Simpson-Maz-
zoli bill for those things that you have outlined to be in place. Ithink it is commendable that it be done, but I am looking at thereality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that we willhave a deficit this year of $200 and some billion, and it is not goingto be possible to make these additional increases for all thesethings. I assume the President will continue to cut back variousprograms in this Nation. What I am saying is that while this maybe a good program, I do not see that you will have the necessaryfunding to do all of this. I also want to know whether or not yourestimate of 6 million people who are undocumented is correct. Onwhat do you base that?
Mr. SHAW. First of all, that is a planning figure. It comes fromour own internal reviews and our own analysis of any number ofreports, including GAO studies that have been done over the past 5years. Select Commission Immigration Reform has used that as abest estimate of the numbers of illegal aliens in the United States.The Bureau of Census demographers work in conjunction. It is acommonly accepted number between two variants, two extremes,from as low as 2 million up to 12 million.
Mr. ROYBAL. Let us use, then, the 6 million figure. It may or maynot be correct. Let us also use the 2 million figure that you esti-mate will be eligible for legalization. If 2 million are eligible for le-galization, what will happen to the other 4 million? Will they beimmediately eligible for deportation? Will they immediately be de-ported?
Mr. SHAW. I doubt that their status would be substantiallychanged from what it is today.
Mr. ROYBAL. In other words, it is quite possible that this pro-gram, once put into place, will result in the mass deportation ofthose who do not qualify. Is that a possibility?
Mr. SHAW. Over time, the normal avenues of the law, in theevent the law is enacted and immigration reform legislation occurs,a certain number of people are going to be identified in the work-place. There would be gradual attrition. There would be additionalrisk in the event employer sanctions legislation would pass. But itwould not be an overnight major achievement of demonstrable pro-portions, as you may be suggesting, sir.
Immediately, INS would be required by law to put into operationa legalization program within 90 days of passage. At the sametime, it might commit itself to a schedule of events that would en-hance its border posture. Six months after passage of law it would
, .
1:4 263
260
begin the preliminary steps to undertake a national employer sanc-tions program, which probably would take 1 to 3 years to come tofull operational mode.
Mr. ROYBAL. That is 6 months later. Now again, it is my under-standing that INS is supporting sanctions. If my understanding iscorrect, how are you going to enforce it?
Mr. NORTON. Again, that is an answer that would require furtherclarification. I would have to have something on which to base myanswer. Can we assume that we are going to get additional re-sources, for example, based on our projections that we would needabout 500 more investigators to implement employer sanctions?
Mr. ROYBAL. We come back now to the matter of financing andthe tremendous deficit that we have in this Nation and the merefact that the program that you have in mind will add to that defi-cit. You agree with that, do you not?
Mr. SHAW. Yes.Mr. NORTON. As Mr. Fajardo has pointed out, it has failed in
other countries that have not supplied the resources necessary toenforce employer sanctions laws.
Mr. ROYBAL. In your opinion, if there is no enforcement of sanc-tions, will sanctions work?
Mr. NORTON. Certainly not.Mr. ROYBAL. In other words, the same thing can very well
happen here in the United States as we have found in at least 19countries in the world that had sanctions imposed on the employer;they failed, and they failed because there were not sufficient fundsto enforce them?
Mr. NORTON. That and the failure of the judicial system to sup-port it.
Mr. ROYBAL. Now, in those countries the evidence is quite clearthat employers, instead of facing penalties under their sanctionsprovisions, just took the work and had it done in some other coun-tries. I represent an area that I think is the textile center of theUnited States, right along with New York. Those people tell methat if sanctions are going to be imposed on employers, they willjust simply cut the garment and then send it out to be assembledin some other foreign country. Perhaps they will even take it allthe way to China. Do you envision that such a thing might happenhere in the United States also?
Mr. NORTON. I think you have to look at both sides of that. Theother side of that same coin is the fact that Mr. Fajardo broughtout: without it, you are facing displacement and wage suppressionright now because of that very same factor.
Mr. ROYBAL. Yes, but right now we do not have sanctions. Theemployer is not going to be faced with the choice. The choice is:Shall I start hiring individuals with the danger of facing a penalty?One thing he will do is, he will not interview those who may lookforeign or who are Spanish speaking. Discrimination comes intoplay immediately. The other choice that he may have is that hewill farm his work out to some other foreign country.
You see, we have enough of that now. We are facing too much ofit here in the United States. If you do not believe it, try to buy ashirt or a tie or a suit that is made in the United States. We canbuy them but the market is a little glutted with stuff that is assem-
264
261
bled elsewhere And that is one of the other problems that we willhave under this particular bill.
I think we have established three things. No. 1, that the fundinglevel will be the same as 1983; that this amount was not even suffi-cient to patrol your borders, to provide for the proper legalizationof those people qualifying in the United Statesthat is the secondthing. The third thing that I think we have agreed on is that sanc-tions, unless they are enforcedand that means at least 500 moreemployees, and my estimate is that it would be more like 1,500they will not work. Am I correct in those assumptions, that thoseare the three points we have agreed to?
Mr. SHAW. I would respectfully disagree, sir. I think there issome misunderstanding in the terms as you state them. First of all,the number of employees that would be required to support variousprovisions implementing Simpson-Mazzoli, enactment that we dis-cussed here today in the event of enactment, would be far from500.
Mr. Rovam,. It would be more than 500?Mr. SHAW It would be more than 500. We would have to talk
about 500 investigators, per se, relative to employer sanctions. Le-galization program, to my recollection, would require 1,100 to 1,500persons who would be specifically brought on board, recruited, andtrained.
Mr. ROYBAL. If I remember correctly, a briefing was given byyour department that clearly indicated in the neighborhood of 1,500additional people could be hired, plus 400 to 500 investigators.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Roybal, I do not know when the briefing was. I donot know at what point it was. I do not even know if we had transi-tional agriculture even in the law at that time as draft provisions.Our planning has been evolving, and these budget numbers contin-ue to change. In front of me, incidentally, I have a copy of H.R.1510, reflecting the Immigration Reform and Control Act as passedby the Senate, and in that version reported by the House of Repre-sentatives Committee on the Judiciary on May 13, 1983I notethat section 404 specifically states that there are authorized to beappropriated for the fiscal year 1984 $200 million to carry out pro-visions of this act.
We are far beyond the stated existing budget levels for the Immi-gration Service for 1983, and we have never as an organizationargued, nor am I aware that the department has not argued for anadditional appropriation and authorization and for a specific sup-plemental that would support Simpson-Mazzoli in the event of pas-sage.
Mr ROYBAL. I understand that when Simpson-Mazzoli does pass,you are entitled to request a supplemental and entitled, of course,to increase your budget request. There is no doubt about that. Themoney that is authorized under this bill, in my opinion, does notinclude this program that we are talking about. There is no refer-ence to that in the bill anyplace; $200 million is to carry out theprovisions of this act, which does not include your program, andthat is the point I was trying to make. I was trying to point out toyou that everything is not rosy under the language of this billwhen it comes to the implementation of the program that you havein mind.
265
262
I have a great deal of sympathy for the Department and itswork, but I am also critical of the fact that you do not have enoughmoney now to do the work you have been .assigned to do and thatthere are too many people in the United States today who couldadjust their status and do not. In Los Angeles, there are only threeclerks taking care of people that sleep there that night in order tobe first in line the next morning. There are only three peopletaking care of the whole crowd.
I sympathize with the fact that you do not have the personnel ordo not have the money to do it. What I am saying is, if we reallywant reform, let us put into this bill real reform. There is noreform in this bill. There is a lot of control but no reform. If wewant reform, let us give your department the necessary funds to doyour job right. You are capable individuals. You have proven thatin the past, and it just seems to me that you should just have themoney that is necessary to do the job of the Immigration Depart-ment in its totality. 1
Mr. Chairman, I realize I am taking a long time, but I wanted toclarify this matter of finances to some degree.
Now you said that the applicant was going to pay for this. Howmuch are you going to charge the applicant?
Mr DAVIS. The provisions of S. 529 would require that we chargea minimum of $100 per application. The H.R. 1510 does not addressthe amount that should be charged.
Mr. ROYBAL. Here is a requirement of $100 per applicant, and weare dealing now with an individual who probably is getting lessthan the minimum rate and with a man who is trying to support afamily elsewhere. I do not think this program will have much of aresponse. particularly when that individual has to face, No. 1, theimmediate deposit of $100; No. 2, the chance that he will not quali-fy anyway; and then the possibility that he will be one of the 4 mil-lion unfortunate people who will face eventual deportation.
I am pointing out some of the flaws that I see in this legislation.I have one other question to ask of Mr. Torres, but I want to ask
each one of you. I have been told on several occasions about asurvey that was made stating that 60 percent of Hispanics in theUnited States favor the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. What do you think,just one at a time? Since you represent various segments of theHispanic community, is it your opinion that the Hispanic commu-nity supports the Simpson-Mazzoli Act?
Ms. HUERTA. Speaking for the Farm Workers Union, we haveunder collective-bargaining agreements over 40,000 workers. Werepresent an additional 45,000 workers whom we are certified torepresent. And I can assure you, Mr. Roybal, that they do not sup-port this bill.
I want to mention, too, and I think I mentioned it earlier, thatwe have a very high unemployment in agriculture. There are liter-ally 10 workers for every single job now in agriculture, and wehave in some of those areas I mentioned in San Diego County,workers who are living in the ground. We have workers who livethere, hoping they can get 1 day's work, and their relatives arefeeding them. These are all undocumented workers, as I saidbefore, that are a kind of select group and special group that do notget bothered by anybody.
2 b6
263
Also, on the list of workers that have been killed, there were 11farmworkers that were killed about 2 weeks ago in Cochella area,where they were being chased by the Immigration Service and theywere killed, There are 11 farmworkers that add to the numbers ofgrowing workers who are killed under the very harsh enforcementby the Immigration Service. The workers do not have any faith inthe Immigration Service, even as you were saying to try to get astatus adjustment. When the worker has lost his immigration cardand he sent it in to the Immigration Service and if he tries to gethis card back, it can take him years to get his card back.
Mr. TORRES. I appreciate the question, Congressman. The surveythat you talked about is an exaggeration of what the Hispanicreally wants. Most Hispanics that we represent indicate they wantsome reform of immigration law, but there is no survey that we areaware of that has ever been done of what Hispanics think aboutSimpson-Mazzoli. If those people who did the survey want to saythat it was done of Simpson-Mazzoli, then that is their interpreta-tion, and they have paid I do not know how many hundreds ofthousands of dollars to do it. But that is not what the survey indi-cates. It indicates simply that Hispanics do want reform in immi-gration law. But if they understand the repercussions of issue thatobviously you know affects the Hispanic community very deeply.
Mr. GARCIA. I always ask one question of everybody I deal with. Isay, "If you are Hispanic, and if you were a Member of Congress,would you vote for this bill?" I think that is the bottom line.
With that, I will close this meeting. Thank you very much.[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene at the call of the Chair.][The information which follows was received for the record:)
26/
%owl.% ac. usa
264
Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress
SISKISRAPRIC AID SOCIOSCOSONIC CSARACURISTICS OF Ili S1SPAMIC PCSULASIOS:
RIARLIS /SCUM 1940 CMOS
Prepared for the Subcommittee ea Ceases sad topulatiou
of the Mouse Committee oa Peet Office and Civil Service
Rick BrownAnalyst is Artless Satimsal Cove:meat
Survey Research SectiomSeesrameatDivisiomSeptember 12, 1943
26
265
ISMOGRAPOIC AND SOCIOCCONOMIC ChASACTIRISTICS OF Tig BISFANIC 70701.ATION:MILTS FROM !hi 1960 CINSOS
INT1OD0CT1011
This summery highlights some of the major demographic aid socioeconomic
characteristics of the lispemic population of the Spited States. The figures
are primarily from the results of the 19$0 Census. but ere also supplemented
with eviiesce from other recast Federal survey. of hispanic,. The figures
contained is this report are compiled from published sources. mainly Census
decussate, and de not represent any independent statistical asalysis.
The first section of this paper details the demographic
characteristics of the hispanic population.
The second section will diocese the socioeconomic characteristics of
the hispanic population. Statistics on education, language. tacos., poverty.
employment and housing for hispanic, are ccmpared with 'bailer figures
for the white mon-hispanic end Slack populations. When possible. figures
from the 11160 Census are need in conjunction with earlier surveys so
that chaages over time can be asalysed.
Included in the wesoreadmn are the following figures:
- -Is 1910 the Census Bureau reported that there were 14.6 aillionh ispenics living is the United States, a 61 percent iever the 1970 figure of 9.1 :sillies.
- -Over 60 percent of the hispanic population reside is threeS tates --California, Tesas and New York. Almost one- quarter liveis the Lee Angeles and New York areas.
2 6 d
266
ties -2
--The lispasic population is younger than the population as a
whole. The median age of lispenice is 23 compared with the
national average of 30.
--napes:ice lag behind both the white aid black population in
educational attaimmest. I. 1983, the perceatage of Sispanics
aged 25-34 who had completed feet or awn years of high school
was 58 percent compared with 88 percent for the son-Wispanic
population.
--The 1980 census reported that 11.1 milli** speak Spanish at home,
including 2.9 million children ages S to 17.
--Ueemployment for IL:panics onceeds the mational ge by 40 to
50 percent. Puerto Ricans average almost double the national
umemployment rate.
According to Census Bureau report, from 1981 to 1982,
nispanics' median family theme fell 6.8 percent (compared
with a drop of 1.4 percent for whites). Almost thirty percent
of all lispanics, 4.3 million, were classified as living below
the poverty line in 1982. The percentage of Ilispanics below
the poverty line in 1982 represented the highest level, by
three percentage points, since statistics for hispanic. non
first computed in 1972.
mono= cummislIcs
The 1980 Cense. Count
The 1980 Census reported that there were14.6 million 8ispanics living in
the United States. 1/ the figure represented as /acreage of 5.5 milli*.
Ilispanics over the 1970 estimate of 9.1 million. 2/ Zee 61 percent growth of
1/ U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Suppleuentry
Report. Persona of Spanish Origin by State: 1980. (PCS0-51 -7. deg. 1982).
2/ The 9.1 million figure is based on the Spanish-origin questiee on the
1970 Minus that only appeared on the long-form which was distributed to
five percent sample of the total respomdeets. In 1980, the Spanish-origin
question was included at all Census forms. study by the Development
Associates and the Population Reference Swreau for the Department of 8salth
ad human Services estimated that the actual hispanic population in 1970 was
10.1 million. JoAmme Willett', et al, The Demographic and Socioecouomic
Characteristics of the hispanic Population of the United States: 1950-1980,
Report to the Drpartmost of health and Semen Services by Development
Associates, dec. and Population leferesce Sureau, Inc., Jan. 18, 1982.
7
267
CRS-3 1"---
the hispanic population from 1,70 to 1910 outpaced the national inc
11.4 percent. 3/ Since the hispanic population has been growing at faster
rote than the national average, lispanics nor constitute 6.4 percent of the
national population, up sharply from 4.5 percent is 1970.
Reasons for the Population Growth
Several reasons have been suggested to explain the rapid growth of the
hispanic population during the past decade. live different factors ars the
moot important:
1) The natural increase in the lispanic population. Since hispanic.
are on ge younger than the rest of the population and havehigher fertility rates, a large proportion of the population inccan be attributed to natural increases -- births outnumbering deaths.The Census Bureau estimates that 1.8 million of the 5.5 silliesincrease in the hispanic population has resulted from the naturalincrease. 4/
Other studies indicate that natural increases nay be respoesible foras much as twothirds of the hispanic population inc . 5/
2) Legal immigration. Daring the 1970's, the largest percentage oflegal immigrants to the United States (422) came from Latin America.Approzinately 1.4 million Rispeaics legally emigrated to the United
States from 1970-1979. 6/
3/ If the 10.1 million estimate for the 1970 hispanic population isestd,--the increase from 1,70 to 1980 is 40 percent.
4/ Letter from Daniel Levise, Acting Director, Bureau of the Census.Bearlike before the Subcommittee on Ceases and Population, Committee onPost Office and Civil Service, V.S. Bosse of Representatives 97th Csagress,let Session, hispanic Immigration and Select Commission on Iimigratioe'sPima' Report, Apr. 27, 21, 1981, p. 19-20.
5/ Cary Davis, Carl Raub and JoAsse Millette. V.S. Rispanics: Changingthe tau of America. Population Reference Bureau. Volume 38, No. 3, Jame1983. p. 15.
6/ Davis et al, p. 22. The figure includes persona moving to theUnited States from Puerto Rico. Mese ,ersoms, however, are sot countedas immigrants by the Immigrtiom and hateralisatioe Service because PuertoRico is a part of the United States.
271sees .
268
Cu-'
3) Insist innigratios. The catributise of illegal immigrate to themath is the lispealc population from 1970-1980 is difficult to
gauge. Ceases projectioes indicate that 1.1 to 1.23 sillies illegal
immigrate ma added to the national population from 1970 to1980, with three - quarters of a mania &trivia' from Nalco. 7/Daum of these penes. gore coated is the Ceases is abatis.
ream Census Berea study csecledes that 2 sillies undocasated
possess were lacledet is the 1980 Cases teals, with 1.3 sillies
of those fro Latta America. 8/ The total populatioa of illegal
aline, however, has beau prAncted to be beams 3.5 ad 6
Willis.. 9/ Therefore, although there was ignificaat ember ofillegal espaic immigrate who *stored the covatry from 1970 to
1980, this populatioe is probably only respeasible for a saltproperties of the reported lactase is the Rismeic population.
4) Chaame is the Trait, of versa. to ideatift themselves asRies ice. The 9 Cases cast of Rispanics use based ou a
sub act a mattes that asked the person whether they are of
Spagish/Rispenic origin or dearest. Chasms over the decade is
ideatificatise with sad coescieesuess of ispaeic barium could
result is a higher propensity of Jonas to identify thessolveo as
Rispanice. AO aide's* that each changes is response patternshave occurred is the pest tea years, is 1970 valy 1 percent of
Spanish estate possess classified their race es "Other" while
93 wrest reported "Mite"; by IPSO, however, 40 percent of the
Fitments populatiou indicated that their race was "Other" and the
percentage alectim "Smite" dre'ped to 56 percent. 10/ The
effect of the decreased propensity of persees to idestify
theaselves allimanica on the immerses* is the Stemmas populstioo
is difficult to assure. The Casa Bureau, hoverer, has estimated
that .2 sillies of the tames cos be traced to a greater
propensity mom Pilipiso and Americas Iodises t destify
/
thenalveo asitimanica on the 1980 Ceases. 11/
7/ Robert Warren, Bureau of the Casa. Retinatiou of the Sias of the
tiusir Alien Population is the Salted States. Prepared for the amid
Meeting of the population Association of America, Apr. 1982.
8/ Robert Warren sad Jeffrey Passel, Bureau of the Census, "Litigates
of Illigal Alias fro bistro Coated is the 1910 Vatted States Casa."
Paper pressated at the Assiut booties of the Population Association of
Asarica, Apr. 1983.
9/ Jacob Siegel it al, Bursae of the Casa, "Prolinisery Review of
&sista, Studies of the limber of Illegal Residents is the Vatted States,"Prepared for the staff of the Select &missies on Immigration and RefugeePolicy, Jan. 30, 1981.
10/ Parsee. of Smaish Origin by State, p. 6-7.
11/ Levies, p. IS.
272
269
CU -5
5) Cussed offarts to include hispeuice is the 1910 Ceases. Efforts bythe Ceases Bureau sod esmemaity groups to locate sad encourage allh ispanic., especially illegal alias., to respond to the 1910 Ceasesmay be respousible for a parties of the higher coast of hispanic,is in 1980. The Causes Bureau concluded that the %adenoma forO hmic, in 1970 was between 1.9 and 7.7 permit (the rates formites and Slacks) sad ceaseleautly a total undercevat ofsignifieautly less than 1 'Mies parses,. Ives if gilt the Illopeeics'obeyers eloped is 1970 were coveted is 1900. improved mffortr.,accent far a treaties of the 5.5 sillies Lacrosse is the Expeeicpopulation.
geographical Bistributiee of the lispseie population
ThelBlipaeic mulattos is highly coat d is three section of the
easstrys the Soathwest, florid. and the Northeast. Ninety perceet of the
hi.paaic population reside is the fifteen States that have hispanic populations
in excess of 100,000 perilous; over GO percent of the hispanic population live in
only three States --Coliforeis, Toms mid Nev Tort. (see Table 1)
the map presented is figure 1, is which the area of the State is
proportional to the number of hisposics is the State, clearly shows the
geographical concentration of the lispesic population.
The amp also details tie economic (situation conditions of the hispanic
population is each state. The ttttt are shaded to shoe the ratio of the median
family income of hispeeice to that of whites.
The hispanic population is else everutelniugly vrbea. Nighty -eight
percent of hispasics, coupared with 75 percent of the vestal population, live
in metropolitan areas. Almost eae esarter of ell hispaaics, 3.5 million, live
in the Los Angeles ad hew York City areal. 12/ Table 2 shove the population
mid the socieec000mic charetsristics of hispanic' is the 25 cities with more
12/ Davis et al, p. 13.
273
270
0 .
271
C13-6
than 30.000 lispanics. Ralf of the lispanic population reside in --Itral
cities, while only almost three - quarters of the non - hispanic population live
outside the central cities.
Ethnic Composition of the hispanic Population
The ispanic population is divided into four categories by the Census
Bureau: persons of Cuban, 114IiCSU -Americas, Puerto Rican and other Spanish
descent. In 19$0, persons of Mexican - American origin accounted for 60 percent
of the lispanic population while Puerto Ricans constituted 14 percent and Cubans
6 percent. During the past decade, the Nelicaa-American proportion of the
total lispanic population has grow from 30 percent in 1,70 to almost 60 percent7'1
in 1950. 13/ ,Projections of the future growth of the Rispenic population,
however, indicate that the ethaic composition will remain almost constant. 14/
The four ethnic subgroups of the hispanic population are located in
different areas. As shown is Table 1, the Mexican-Americans live primarily in
the Southwest, California and Texas, whereas the Cohens reside in Florida (also
a growing somber is law Jersey) and the Puerto Ricans in Maw Tort (with more
moving to Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pseasylvauia in the 1970s).
Age Compositioe of the Rispenic Population
The youth of the lispemic population, colebimed with the higher fertility
ratio, for hispanic women, is responsible for a large portion of the rapid
13/ Persona of Spanish Origin by State, p. 6-7.
14/ Projections of the *Upside Population in the United States, 1990-2000.Report to the Departmest of health and Imam Services. Prepared by DevelopmestalAssociates and the Population Reference Sereas, Feb. 19$3. p. 26.
275
2111,11 11011111120412111ACISIGUIT1C0 04 123114111 LIVEN IN 41444111111 106,000 ORION 1111141119:1
!tato
Mal 1140191911111looslattom
2PopdatloaChows p1170 t. 1440
Inloolottoet Voaloso
osimia
211lopooloo.1 Ponta
Wm °flea
2 Ilopoolooof Owbosotitim
2 lopoidasLivia. taRoom Aram
Ildiam44 ot
Colifeeola 4,344,331 11.11 2 50.02 2.0 2
----1.3 2 43.3 2 '22.1
T. 2,143,424 42.2 2 22.2 2 A 2 .3 2 84.1 2 22.1
Wm Toth 1,139,304 22.7 2 2.3 2 34.4 2 4.6 2 44.3 2 23.1
Met& 634,134 111.1 2 1.3 2 11.0 2 24.4 2 44.7 2 32.2
1111oo10 633,402 61.6 2 64.2 2 24.3 2 3.0 2 17.5 2 22.1
Wow Jersey 411,443 44.3 2 2.7 2 41.3 2 16.4 2 17.4 2 24.4
Row !lobo 477,222 '34.4 2 41.0 2 .3 2 .1 2 72.4 2 23.2
Adams 440,701 64.4 2 49.4 2 .2 2 .2 2 46.4 2 21.7
Colosoao 134,717 30.6 2 61.0 2 1.2 2 .4 2 14.1 2 22.3
Itebl000 162,440 7.3 2 60.1 2 7.6 2 2.6 2 40.2 2 21.3
Fesoeyboola 123,061 41.4 2 12.6 2 30.6 X 3.4 2 44.1 2 22.0
lb000domotts 141,043 113.2 2 3.2 2 34.2 2 4.7 2 43.4 2 21.2
Coosootlest 144,444 93.2 2 3.6 2 71.0 2 4.3 2 13.3 2 21.1
tisoldoitoo 120,016 104.2 2 67.6 2 4.2 2 1.0 2 72.0 2 21.1
ale 111,443 -7.4 2 44.3 2 27.1 2 2.7 2 63.0 2 22.3
Matl000lllopoolePloodatlos 14,604,673 61.0 2 39.4 2 13.4 2 3.3 2 41.1 2 23.2
rip.. from 1100 COmmo, 1C*4-1-41.
276
USA 280CI4L MAO 2080802C CISACIIIISTICI OF Emma LITIO8 IN CITIES imp 30,000 OR MOM 17.81411/C8
tielydsPepeletlem
I of City'sTOW111
ellemLeese
X DaleyMeet,Lime
PaeosetI Completed4 Isere of
MIA Scheel
I SemeeheldsMat MeetEwdai
rho Spe:8peelehat Mame
UM Teat, IT 1,406,381 11.1 X $ 10,413 33.7 X 10.4 X 68.5 X 20.1 X 324,873Lee &melee, CA 815,305 27.5 X $ 13,368 24.2 X 8.5 X 65.1 X 73.1 X 166.327Menge. IL 423,337 14.1 X $ 15,630 24.1 I 12.1 X 68.2 X 75.5 X 22,425Sem Ameemie, U 421,086 33.7 X $ 12.833 28.3 X 6.4 X 31.7 X 40.1 X 26.242Meteor, Ti 310,611 17.6 X $ 16,782 18.0 X 4.7 X 61.7 X 63.5 X 28,781RI Pees, TI 265,117 62.5 X $ 12.385 28.6 X 2.1 X 38.1 X 44.3 X 73,060Illamd, FL 124.185 56.0 I $ 16,014 22.1 X 6.2 X 34.7 X 70.1 X 30,726Sem Jess, CA 140,316 22.3 X $ 20,133 U.S X 10.0 X 31.0 X 41.8 X 11,174Sem Kew. CA 121,133 14.8 X $ 14,397 21.6 X 8.9 X 30.3 X 511.7 I 25,768fleselm. All 114,875 14.8 X $ 13,711 21.3 X 8.9 X 36.1 X 44.1 X 20,272Allepeemos, 1111 112,030 33.8 2 $ 13,611 17.6 X 8.2 X 31.2 X 41.1 X 12,078Oillee. II 110,311 12.2 X $ 13,112 21.2 X 4.2 X 66.1 X 62.2 X 25,620Coepee Clmistfal 100,221 46.7 X $ 15,143 22.8 X 3.5 X 58.1 X 43.0 X 23,218111.1e0h, VL 167,109 74.3 X $ 15,131 13.0 I 6.7 I 33.3 I 24.4 I 21,712Seeger, CO 12,227 18.7 X $ 12,245 23.2 X 8.8 X 37.2 X 58.6 I 7,652Ilemee &me, CA 116,652 44.3 X $ 16,126 11.2 X 7.8 X 73.4 X 57.6 X 20,025Lamed, II $3,057 23.0 I $ 11,038 36.0 I 7.6 I 63.8 1 32.2 X 25,091Sem Fremelese, CA 84,114 12.4 X $ 17,025 17.1 X 8.4 X 42.4 X 69.1 X 10,275Itmeem, Ai 82,186 24.8 X $ 13,433 20.3 X 8.9 X 31.7 X 38.2 X 16,443levemerIlle, U 71,213 113.8 $ 11,312 37.7 X 8.4 X 66.2 X 43.7 X 21,068Artie, TI 64,145 18.1 I $ 14,756 22.7 X 3.0 X 52.8 X 58.1 X 12,272PflIsdelpIde, FA 64,323 3.8 X $ 1,214 43.1 X 16.5 X 61.0 X 58.2 X 18,733Meek, NJ 61,322 18.6 X $ 10,300 41.2 X 13.7 X 66.4 X 14.1 X 17,826Fromm, CA 51,271 23.3 X $ 13,322 23.1 X 13.1 X 34.3 X 26.6 X 6,1261M llecsb, CA 50,450 14.0 X $ 14,243 23.1 X 7.8 X 52.1 X 73.2 X 7,132
Flores see teem the 1110 Comes, P0000-12. Lwow ..4 poverty stet/et/ea refer to 1172 lames. levels. Ideeatlee figuresere fee pongee 23 pore of age sod elder. Lewes. statistics ere for Andros 3 - 17 Sear..! ape.
27 7
274
CRS -7
growth of the Spanish -origin population during the past decade. The differences
is the age compositios of the liapanic population compared with that of the rest
of the population are strikiag. The age pyramids in figure 2 show that the
liapasic population. particularly the NezicasrAmericass sod Puerto licans, is
significantly yeenger than the satiosal average. The median age for !japonica
is 23 years old, seven year yeeager thee the son-limpanic median of 30. 15/
trojectioes of the future Growth of the Riepanic Popoletion
To project the future lispanic population, accurate assumptions swat be
sods comcerni.mg the future fertility rates, the level of legal immigration mid
the number of illegal immigrants. Ecosonic sad political factors is Cuba,
Mssico, Puerto Rico and other Latia American coomtries during the seat few
decades will have a igaificant effect oa the growth of the lispanic population.
.-.Despite the problem. is projectisg the future popelatios growth, several
attempts have bees mode.
A 1943 tody by Development Associatioss sod the Popslatios Bursae for
the Department of Sealth and Domes Services }reeats two &Merest projectioss
of the Dispute popmlatios is 1990 and 2000. Without any illegal immigration,
they predict that the ifspoisic popultion will iscroase to 19.4 sillion is
1100 and to 24 million is 2000. If, kooever, illegal imigsatios is seaweed
to add 00,000 lisps:its meneelly, the etedy projects Itispeaic population
of 24 million is 11190 sod 34 'Olio. is 2000. lbf
15/ D.S. Depertemmt of Commerce. Bureau of Cesaos. Geseral Population
Characteristics. Visited States Summary. PCS0-1-111. Nay 1943. Table 43.
14/ Projection. of the hispanic Populatiom is the Visited States:
1900-2000.
276
275
Figure 2. Apc.S.: Caunpasition of the Hispanic and Total US.Persiiess: 1080
11111PANIC POPULATION
IE115111UMW.1.'"IF.16 '11
1-2021311rillP4111111!
IMMOCAN MINICABS
MOW OP POUANCIle
IMICINT PORLA11011
gir
OMNI MOM=
279
276
CRS-8
tudy conducted by the Center for the Continuing Study of the California
economy also develops tvo different scenarios for the growth of the Hispanic
population by 1990 and 2000. The low growth projection, with migration
adding 2.8 million lispanics between 1980 and 2000, produces estimates of
18.8 silliest Rispanice in 1990 and 23.1 million in 2000. The high growth
scenario, with innigration of 5.1 million from 1980-2000, projects a Rispanic
population of 20. million in 1990 and 26.9 million in 2000. 17/
Socioeconomic Characteristics
Education
The youtb of the Rispanic population means that education is a particularly
important concern. The amount and quality of the education received by the
current generation of school-aged Rispanice will affect the occupations
available to and the incomes earned by lispanics in the future. Unfortunately,
educational attainment is an area in which Rispanice lag behind both the White
mon -Rispanic population and the fleck population. For instance, in 1981,
36 percent of lispanics aged 18 and 19 were not attending school and were not
high school graduates, that is, they were dropouts. The figure is more than
twice the rate for Whites (16 percent) and significantly higher than the
atatistics for Slacks (19 percent). 18/When lispanics remain in school, they
are such were likely to fall behind the grade level of their peer.. In 1976,
24 percent of 14 to 20 year old lispanics were at least two years behind the
grade level of their peers. In 1976, 24 percent of 1 to 20 year old hispanic.
17/ Ch y1 Russell. The Sews About lispanics. American Demographics.
Mar. 1983, p. 25.
18/ Davis it al, p. 29.
28o
277
CRS-9
their 'expected' grade in school compared with only percent of eon-Nispanic
whites. 19/
!here has been improvement in the educational attainment of Sispanics.
The progress is most apparent in lispanics ages 25 to 34, the youngest cohort
to have completed their education. Iron 1970 to 1983, the percentage of
lispanics aged 25-34 who completed four or more years of high school i
from 45 to 58 percent; the percentage who had completed four or more years of
college doubled from 5 to 10 percent. During the same period, however, the
non- lispanics 25 to 34 years old wade similar gains. The percentage completing
four or more years of high school rose from 73 to 88 percent and the figures
for those completing four or more years of college increased from 16 to 25
percent. 20/ Although the average lispanic youth receives more education now
than in tha past, the gap between the educational attainment of Hispanics and
that of non - Hispanics still persists. The problem is especially acute for
Mexican-American and Cuban youths.
One crucial problem faced Hispanic youths in school is differences in
language. The 1980 Census reported that 11.1 million persons speak Spanish
at home, including 2.9 million children ages 5 to 17. (see Table 3) larger
number of children, perhaps twice as many, live in households in which
Spanish is spoken, even though they do not speak Spanish themselves. 21/
19/ Susan Boren. &duration of Hispanics: Access and Achievement. TheSisparac Population of the United &tat's: An Overview. A Report Prepared bythe Congressional Research Service for the Subcoemittee on Census andPopulation of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. U.S. louse ofRap Imes. Apr. 21, 1983. CPO: Washington.
20/ Testimony of the Census Bureau.
21/ Dorothy Waggoeer, Language Minority Children and Adults in the
United States: 1980. p. 9.
281
78Z L11-011011d wres3 OKI
61' 106q fI Mit 996101 romeaso3 VI' ULLL 60' 6tff1 Ei9t0I sySTIPTM 92' MIL fI tOLft 219901 entmagairsaval II' tt926 t Inn fItttI apiaTionamod II' ftflItl II' LfItt Z096LI opasaTop LI' LOLItZ ZI 69,19 'Lint nosTra II' tLf6f1 60' LfIt9 ItLZft **Tam sag if 62Lt6Z tI' 911102I LLftIt Lasser asp Et* ZOOfft it 600ItI II0006 Wenn LL 616119 II 901191 =LIU ',Tsai/ It' latiOI Er 'LEM 2000tI 44(11 NM ft LItttLI I. LOOISL tittlitZ ran Et' ItZOCEZ OZ' tfft09 fIfttIt splaaarpo
Or' fffOLI9 91' ISOLNZ 909[1111 T'2° '9'0
ITT 38 2oggimed smog le Try 38 leglijaSed IoM as 4oT,d9 omps le 'meads 41411611 "WS 111411 1111 sequel geTtlag *Ws wads ole alarm' weds ma ~cud
411 efluodoad 44 solasadoid Jo saws Tam
amp law sly $2.01 9I fraosmod LI - t oft summed
SNOB IT Rilffilt 7x139 OM SMOIM 000.001 mL 1010N MA UMW t
279
CRS-10
Table 3 also shows that 16 percent of the children and 26 percent of the
adults who speak Spanish at home report that they speak English poorly or not
at all. Studies using objective us aaaaaa of English language proficiency,
instead of self-evaluations, indicate that the number of children with difficulty
speaking Sailfish may be underestimated by as such as a factor of four. 22/
Employment and %employment
ispanica tend to be employed in lower paid and I killed jobs which
are more susceptible to economic slumps. Lees than 15 percent of Sispanics are
employed in professional and technical or managerial positions, compared with
28 percent of the total population; twice as many Rispanics work in occupations
classified as noatransport operatives (sewers, ironer., sorters, inspectors,
packers, textile operatives, etc.) as Vv. go for the entire workforce. 23/
There are significant differences in occupations among the subgroups of the
ispaofc population. Cubans tend to be employed in more white collar positions,
while Mexican-Ammricans and Puerto Ricans find work in less skilled occupations.
For instance, IS percent of Puerto Rican men are employed in service occupations
compared with the national average of 9 percent. 'ore than three-quarters of
llispanic women worked in three occupational cateCories: clerical, oontransport
operatives and service. Although historical comparisons are limited to 1973 when
22/ Waggoner, p. 9.
23/ Employment statistics used in this section are from: Dennis Roth.f iapanZcs is the U.S. Labor Force: Brief Examination. The Rispanic
Population of the United States: An Overview. Report Prepared by theCongressional Research Service for the Subcommittee on Census and Populationof the Committee on Poet Office and Civil Service. U.S. Rouse of
Representatives, Apr. 21, 1983. Washington: CPO.
283
280
CIS -11
data was first collected, there are indications that gradually more Nispanics
are finding jobs in higher skilled occupations.
The unemployment rate for lispanics tends to exceed the national Se
by 40 to 50 percent. In the last quarter of 1982 when uneeployment rose to a
post-Depression high of 10.7 percent, 15.2 percent of Bispanic workers over age
20 were without work. Puerto licsn workers have the highest unemployment rates
of all lisp/mice, averaging 30 to 45 percent above the Sispanic rate and 80
to 100 percent above the national rate (thus, similar to rates for blacks).
Cuban workers, however, have an uneeployment rate of 25 percent less than the
overall lispanic rate.
Income and Poverty
Less skilled jobs and higher rates of unemployment result in lover incomes
and a larger member of lispanics living below the poverty line. In 1982, the
median family income for hispanic families totaled $ 16,227 compared with
$23,433 for all families. 24/ The ratio of lispanic to white median family
income has remained at about 70 percent for a decade. According to a Census
Bureau report from 1981 to 1982, however, hispanic median family income fell
6.8 percent, from $17,406 to $16,227 in 1982 dollars compared to a drop of
1.7 percent for whites. Thus, the ratio of lispanic to white income declined
to 66 percent, the lowest figure since lispanic income statistics were first
collected in 1972. The mediae Limose for lispanic families, adjusted for
24. Income and poverty statistics referred to in this section are from
the March 1983 Current Population Survey. U.S. Department of Coemerce. Bureau
of the Census. likmey Income and Poverty Status of Families and Persons in the
United States: 1982: P-60. 114. 140.
284
281
CRS-12
inflatiou, also reached record los in 1982. The income of lispanic families
has declined by 14 percent over the past decade, almost half of the decrease
occerriag iron 13111 to 13$2.
Ia 191)2,4.3 sillies lispanics, 23.3 percent, were classified as living
below the poverty level. The poverty rate for lispanics was more than double
the rate for whites (12 percent) sad approached the rate for blacks (34 percent).
From 1141 to 1342, the member of lisposics living below the poverty lime
increased by 600,000 peruse (a li percent rise). As with the iecome statistics,
the percentage of lispasics below the poverty line in 1382 represented the
highest level, by 3 percentage poiats, aims statistics for lispeuics were first
gewgaw! is 1i72.
leasing
Two mineral criteria are ofteu mud to compare the bousiag of different
pepslatios grasps: the percentage of peruse who ewe their boss and whether
the honing spots aiming mustards (phobias, beat, telephose service, sot
overcrowded). By both stamdards, Mispesic hissing lags babied that of the
Mite populaties. Sousse the lispasic populaties toads to be poorer and
more .vbas than the rest of the moieties, far fewer lispenics owe their
emu hems. The I910 Ceases bead that 43 percent of lispeoice eve their bones,
pared with it percent of mss-fispasics.12/ Puerto Riess. are especially
likely to rest their Wean as 73 permit live in rested dwellings. Figures
for the pa:costage of lispasics that rest their Ismaili; are listed in Table 2.
23/ Ceases forum tontines}.
285
282
CU-13
study by SOD *thawing cooditioss is 1875 sod 1876 found that
Disputes sere twice as likely as the geesrel population to live in
,housing that wore classified as isedequate (lacking tummies or plumbing,
or ima4equate electrical or hitches facilities). 26/ garner studies also
show that Disputes ere more likely to live la overcrowded bowing,
defined es mere than oes }ergot per room. 27/ Siet llispasics have lower
facades, live iu cities and rest their bossing, they must devote a larger
share of their imams to bossing costs. Tweetrmtme percent of liapseics,
cowered to 20 preset of ell households, mast pay is sces of 25 pertain
of their iscome le rant. 25/ the 25 percent figure is considered as the
msebmin parties a family should allocate for loosing costs.
26/ Dorothy J. Salley. lousing of lispasics. the Dispute
Populetioe of the United States: As °genies. A Report Prepared by the
Coegressiosal Research Service for the Subcommittee ou Ceases end Population
of the Committer. c Post Office and Civil Service. U.S. louse of Represeutetives.
April 21, l883. %whimsies: CPO. pp. 109-122.
27/ U.S. Commission es Civil, Rights. Social ledicetots of quality for
*Lorin-ie. avid Women. August 1176. pp. 75-79.
28/ bailey, p. 118.
05/1bp/ltt
280
283
NATIONAL PUERTO RICAN COALITION, INC.,ALEXANDRIA. VA , September id. 198.1.
HOD. KATIE HALL,Chairwoman of the Census and Population Subcommittee.Washington, DC
DEAR MRS HALL I take this opportunity to congratulate you for hosting therecent hearing entitled, "The Hispanic Population Demographic and Issue Profile,"and request that the enclosed Executive Summary be included in the Hearingsrecord.
The findings and recommendations contained in our study, "Assessing the Impactof Federal Cutbacks on Employment and Training Opportunities for Puerto Ricans"are specially relevant to your review of Employment in the Hispanic communityand the Job Training Partnership Act
We look forward to future opportunities when we may share before your commit-tee our concerns regarding the public policy concerns of the Puerto Rican communi-ty
Sincerely.Louis NUNEZ, President.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND TO THE: STUDY
Puerto Ricans throughout the nation's fifty states confornt enormous obstacles tothei well-being The socio-economic profile of this second-largest, youngest subgroupof Hispanic Americans is not only stark but appears to be worsening. Compared tothe U S non-Hispanic white population, other Hispanics and almost every other mi-nority group. Puerto Ricans have fewer jobs, lower family income, higher povertyrates, and lower levels of educational attainment To cite two examples, 42.8 percentof Puerto Ricans in the United States lived at or below the poverty level in 1981,compared to :14'2 percent and 11 1 percent the U S black and white populations re-spectively Mean family income that year was $14,272 for Puerto Ricans, $16,696 forblacks and $26,934 for whites.
While this Puerto Rican reality had been partly reflected in statistics gathered byNew york City officials and Puerto Rican organizations over 'wo decades, it was notuntil 1980 that official U S. Census figures began to document the bare outlines ofthe condition of the Puerto Rican community nationally Recognizing that the needfor more complete data on this distressed community persistsespecially duringtimes of economic austerity and significant federal domestic policy changestheNational Puerto Rican Coalition conceived and carried out a Rockefeller Founda-tion-funded study to assess the employment and training opportunities for PuertoRicans in seven cities with sizable Puerto Rican populations Hartford, Rochester,Boston, Newark, New York, Chicago and Philadelphia. Support for the study wasalso received from the Ford Foundation.
The primary purpose of the study was to document and analyze the aitual andanticipated impact of federal cutbacks on employment and training opportunitiesfor Puerto Ricans Beyond that, its goal was to identify useful policy recommenda-tions which would serve to improve such opportunities for Puerto Ricans.
METHODOLOGY
Seven individual city studies were designed and carried out during the period Feb-ruary 1982 to August 1983 by principal investigator I. Michael Borrero. Data werecollected through questionnaires sent to key administrators of employment andtraining programs (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act [CETA], PrivateIndustry Council [PIC], Work Incentive Program [WIN] and Vocational Education)in each of the seven cities studied; workshops held in the cities involving key PuertoRican and non-Puerto Rican members of those communities who were knowledge-able about the needs of the Puerto Rican community and concerned about the eco-nomic progress of their city; and questionnaires administered to a r 'domly selectedsample of Puerto Ricans who had participated in public employment and trainingprograms in Hartford, Rochester and Newark.
These studies culn..nated in reports on five cities (Boston, Hartford, Neward, NewYork and Rochester) and a summary report.
287
284
SELICTED 3INDINGS AND RCOMMNDATIONS
Finding IThere continues to be a great need for precise, accurate social and economic sta-
tistical data on Puerto Ricans in the United States, including data on the labormarket participation of Puerto Ricans. Available data on this community are usual-ly limited, dated or unfocused.
Recommendation IAs a matter of policy, federal. state and municipal agencies must begin in earnest
to routinely collect socurevonomic concerning Puerto Ricans Unless this hap-pens soon. policy decisions that could serve to improve the well-being of PuertoRican communities may never be made.
Finding 2Gwen the low socio-economic profile of Puerto Ricans in the cities studied, one
would expect appreciable numbers enrolled in public employment and training pro-grams Our study revealed that, of all groups. Puerto Ricans had the lowest partici-pation levels even though they would be the most eligible Consequently. across theboard program cuts being implemented or considered will have a disproportionateimpact on the Puerte ...am community.Recommendation
Puerto Rican community-based organizations. PICs and program administratorsmust assure that eligibility criteria and service priorities under the Job TrainingPartnership Act of I9S2 are extensively disseminated within the Puerto Rican com-munity They should also collaborate in local oversight efforts of programs imple-mented under that act Program advisory boards and councils, as well as programadministrators, must make every effort to ensure that the employment and trainingneeds of the Puerto Rican community are forthrightly addressed through these pro-grams
Finding .1There is a wide-spread belief among employment and training program adminis-
trators and within the Puerto Rican communities studied that, because of an in-creased emphasis on producing quantifiable results with significantly reduced pro-gram budgets, citizens with additional training needs leg, English language instruc-tion [ESL' and basic education) will be overlooked as trainees In other words, thosewith the most training needs will receive less.Recommendation .1
While efforts by employment and training administrators to do more with less arelaudable, we should recognize that Puerto Ricans in the cities studied may well bedenied entry into such programs precisely because their needs are greater thanthose of other groups This would have serious consequences for the Puerto Ricancommunities involved, and steps must be taken immediately to prevent that fromhappening At a minimum. targeted efforts to meet the special needs of this popula-tion, such as ESL, basic education and school-to-work transition programs must bestrengthened
Finding 4Very few Puerto Ricans were found tc be members of Private Insustry Councils,
advisory councils or any important deusion-making body, and none of the citiesstudied had a Puerto Rican or Hispanic administrator in a key decision-makingposition of employment and training programs.Recommendation 4
A major commitment must be made by all employment and training programdecision-making bodies and by community-tased Puerto Rican organizations toassure that knowledgeable Puerto Ricans are identified and recruited to serve onthese councils. Committees should be established within each Private IndustryCouncil and other such decision-making bodies to assure the appropriate participation, at all levels, of the Puerto Rican community. Community groups must set upoversight efforts to assure Puerto Rican input into the decisionmaking process.
Finding .5The percentage of Puerto Rican female-headed households averaged 42 percent of
all Puerto Rican households in the seven cities studies Comparable !979 nationalfigures derived from the 1979 Current Population Survey) indicated that while 15
Asa
285
percent of all U.S households were female-headed, the figures for Hispanic female-headed households were as follows: Puerto Rican. 40 percent: Mexican American. 16percent; Cuban American and other Spanish Origin. 17 percent.Recommendation 5
It should be clear that this finding has implications far beyond the focus of thisstudy, and we urge policy makers at all levels as well as the Puerto Rican communi-ty itself to give it serious attention. Since, as our study points out, such Pueto Ricanhouseholds have special child care. pre-training and transportation needs, it is im-perative that all groups directly involved or concerned with public employment andtraining programs ensure that the special employment and training needs of PuertoRican female heads of households are not overlooked. We therefore recommend thatstipends and special support services be made available to assure the participationin employment and training programs by these Puerto Ricans.
CONCLUSION
A 1976 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Puerto Ricans in the Conti-nental United States: An Uncertain Future, reached conclusions that remain validseven years later:
"Those who designed and implemented [Federal poverty programs of the lastdecade' lacked. almost entirely. an awareness of the Puerto Rican community, itscultural and linguistic identity, and its critical problems . . . causing job trainingand other programs to operate in vacuums. In some cases. the data the programsare based on are so inadequate that those who should be targets for help. such asPuerto Ricans. have been shortchanged .
"The Commission's overall cony fusion is that mainland Puerto Ricans generallycontinue mired in the poverty facing first generations of all immigrant or migrantgroups ' *.
"The United States has never before had a large migration of citizens from off-shore. distinct in culture and language and also facing the problem of color preju-dice After n years of significant migration. contrary to conventional wisdom thatonce Puerto Ricans learned [English' the second generation would move into themainstream of American society. the future of this distinct community in theUnited States is still to be determined."
As our study makes clear at the outset. its findings and recommendations shouldbe viewed as a significant step toward the long-overdue. precise documenting of thePuerto Rican condition throughout the United States. While Puerto Rican migra-tion between Puerto Rico and the U.S. mainland remains a significant factor thatmust be considered by all concerned with the well-being of Puerto Ricans. theseAmericans are no longer a primary Puerto Rico-New York City phenomenon.Indeed. they face similarly acute problems wherever they reside. throughout the 50states. Yet their growing numbers and untapped talents and energies represent avital factor in this nation's progress. By understanding and responding to the dis-tinctive needs of the Puerto Rican worker. all Americans will benefit.
[The letter which follows was received in response to writtenquestions which were st.bmitted by Congressman Dannemeyer to thewitness subsequent to the hearing.)
28it , '
286
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONWASHINGTON DC xlm
November 1. 1983
The Honorable Katie Hall
Chairwoman. Census and PopulationSubcommittee
Post Office and Civil Service CommitteeU.S. House of RepresentativesWashington. D.C. 20510
Dear Madame Chairwoman:
he are pleased to respond for the hearing record to the questions submittedby Congressman Oannemeyer from the September 13. 1983. hearings on educatinglanguage minority children. If you have any further need of information.please do not hesitate to contact us.
Enclosure
Sincerely.
Keith Baker
,f1r 290
'.1 -t Adriana de Kanter
287
QUESTION: Is the Baker/de Kanter Report an anti-bilingual education repot?
ANSWER: As we stated in our testimony, the Baker/de Kanter report documentssevera cases in which bilingual education was an efective pedagogicalmethod for language minority/limited English-proficient youth. Many schoolshave used and should continue to use quality bilingual education programs.However, because we also found other effective programs for teaching thisschool-age population. English as a second language and immersion, werecommended that the Federal government not mandate only one approach formeeting the educational needs of language minority/limited English-proficientstudents.
That no one approach for tear 'trig language minority children was found tobe uniformly effective should not come as a surprise to anyone familiarwith the general literature on education instruction. A clear lesson ofmodern education research is that children's educational needs differ andthat no one single instructional method has ever been proven uniquelyeffective for all types of children.
QUESTION: Some critics of our report have charged that the ReaganAdministration is responsible for the results of your study.Is this true?
ANSWER: This charge is utterly baseless. Our report was done at the requestof Carter Administration. Our conclusions were reached and firstcommunicated to officials of the Carter Administration. We discussed theproblem of making the report public with officials of the Carter Administrationand they decided that, in making the report public, we should fully documenthow we reached our conclusions, Documenting the report was a lengthy processwhich caused the report to appear publicly during the Reagan Administration.
At no point did political appointees in the Office of the Deputy UnderSecretary for Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, in the Under Secretary'sOffice, or the Office of the Secretary in either the Carter or ReaganAdministration try to censor our findings or interject their beliefs.
QUESTION: Two employees of the American Psychological Association pulled
together the critiques of several professors on the Baker/de Kanterreport at the request of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Doyou have any comment on the letter they sent up to the Caucus?
ANSWER: We have quite a few comments on this critique which we attachedto our testimony. Briefly, allow us to summarize the highlights of oursubmitted response for the record.
This review of our study was done at the request of the Congressional HispanicCaucus. Two employees of the APA's Washington office wrote a letter summarizingthe comments of five college professors. As we pointed out in our testimonynone of the APA reviewers disagreed with our conclusions. In fact, two ofthem explicitly agreed with our conclusions stating "the government should notrecommend exclusive adoption of the TBE approach" and "there is no one mostsuitable anproach." It is significant to note the APA employees omitted theseconclusions from their summary letter to the Hispanic Caucus.
As for the rest of the letter, it begins by stating that our report does
not address the total question of "whether or not bilingual education is
effective." As we pointed out in our testimony, we were asked to answer two
basic questions derived from the principal intent of Federal policy toward
language minority students:
1. Does TBE lead to better performance in English?
2. Does TBE lead to better performance in nonlanguage subject areas?
Although a number of other goals are often recognized for bilingual education,
our review was limited to these two overriding questions. The issue under-
lying the study was whether or not the Federal government was justified
in proposing a legal requirement of TBE. However, the letter goes on to
discuss our report as if it were a general evaluation of bilingual education- -
which, as the letter itself acknowledges, is not at all the case. Having
set up their strawman, the letter even makes mistakes in attacking the
strawman. The letter criticizes our report for "inconsistencies." Only
one example of an inconsistency is ever claimed in any of the review material
and that reviewer was factually wrong in his assessment of the supposed
"inconsistency."
QUESTION: Would you again state what the Supreme Court decision (Lau)had to say precisely about what must be taught in our schools
with respect to non-English speaking students?
ANSWER: First of all, we would like to remind you we are not lawyers, so we
cannot give you a legal interpretation of the Lau decision. However, we
can quote from the Supreme Court's decision:
...there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with
the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who
do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful
education."
The Court's majority opinion did not specify any specific program of instruction
as a remedy to the unequal educational treatment of language minority students.
It remanded this issue for the "fashioning of appropriate relief" to the
lower court. However, the Court's decision noted;
'Teaching English to the students of Chinese ancestory who do not speak
the language is one choice. Giving instruction to this group in Chinese
is another. There may be others."
Nowhere in the Lau decision did the Court state, or even imply, that transitional
bilingual education must be the sole remedy to the problem. The instruction
from the Lau decision to the schools was simple: here are students with a
unique problem in school - -help them.
O
29V.